Tuesday, November 24, 2015

#### BOSTON GLOBE'S BIGOTRY AGAINST CATHOLICS

NEWS ALERT

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: C. J. DOYLE

CATHOLIC AUTHOR EXPOSES BIGOTRY
OF THE BOSTON GLOBE

The Hollywood formula film Spotlight, which celebrates The Boston Globe for its campaign to bring down the Catholic Church by revealing that hundreds of minors in the Archdiocese of Boston were molested by perverted priests---who are always carefully described as pedophiles and sexual abusers, rather than what they actually were, homosexual predators---opened today in Boston and throughout the nation.

Predictably, the intrepid reporters of Morrissey Boulevard are admiringly portrayed as doggedly seeking the truth, which is shamefully concealed by a powerful and corrupt Catholic Church. This tendentious exercise in cinematic propaganda omits a few salient facts, however.

It doesn't tell you that the pursuit of truth was the last thing anybody at the Globe had on their mind. It doesn't tell you that prior to the 2002 revelations, the Globe waged a thirty year war against Catholicism, maligning the Catholic Faith, its leaders, and its moral teachings, opposing the constitutional rights of Catholics, and trying to destroy the political career of anyone in public life who supported those teachings and defended those rights.  Nor does the movie tell you how the Globe hired an excommunicated ex-priest to write scores of columns blaming the Church for all the crimes of history.

If you are interested in finding out the truth about The Boston Globe and its hostile coverage of Catholicism, Catholic author David F. Pierre, Jr. has written a splendid little book entitled SINS OF THE PRESS: The Untold Story of the Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.

Dave Pierre not only documents the Globe's longstanding, vitriolic and pervasive institutional animus against the Church, but exposes the fact that the Globe, for decades, promoted the very same behaviors, pathologies, and, in some cases, individuals, which it later condemned the Catholic Church for tolerating. Pierre also recounts all the distortions, misrepresentations, calculated omissions, and outright deceptions perpetrated by the Globe in its campaign to discredit the moral authority and destroy the public influence of its historic adversary, the Catholic Church.

SINS OF THE PRESS is thoroughly researched, meticulously documented, well organized, hard hitting, and eminently readable. Although short (about 170 pages), it is an impressive piece of scholarship and a valuable contribution to American Catholic history.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts is pleased to give it our wholehearted endorsement. As an organization committed to combating anti-Catholicism, the League also wishes to extend its thanks to Dave Pierre for his tireless work in constructing this detailed historical narrative and record of hypocrisy and anti-Catholic bigotry in New England's most powerful media institution.

If you wish to read SINS OF THE PRESS, you may acquire a copy by going to http://www.amazon.com/Sins-Press-Untold-Reporting-Catholic/dp/1511852593.

It is always inspiring, when, in this hostile culture, you encounter a Catholic with the courage to fight back!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

#### CATHOLIC BISHOP'S BAD JUDGEMENT

(Money from this organization has gone to communist Saul Alinsky groups which promote leftist,progressive,communist programs. Potus Obama and Hillary Clinton are followers of Saul Alinsky. One of his strategies  to change an organization is to bankrupt it and then rebuild it into a socialist/communist
organization. Potus Obama is working to "transform" our constitutional republic into a socialist republic like they had in eastern Europe and have in Cuba. When Soviet Union imploded and could not support Cuba,     leftist,progressive,communist Potus Obama bailed out the communist government of Cuba with the help of the pope. BLL)




CATHOLIC CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

By Mary Anne Hackett, President, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
On the weekend of November 21-22, the collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development will be taken up in the Catholic Churches around the country and once again, the Catholic Media Coalition, of which Catholic Citizens of Illinois is a member, is urging a boycott of the collection.  CCHD professes to assist the poor, not by direct charity, but by developing projects that enable the poor to help themselves.  In reality, the bulk of donations go to community organizing groups that agitate for the leftist agenda often in direct conflict with Catholic teachings.
Over the years the controversy about the CCHD has continued because of the bishops’ failure to institute change.  Many Catholics will remember the millions of dollars funneled to ACORN before its scandalous activities leading to the mortgage and bank collapse were exposed.  Several times the CCHD has pledged to reform but its direction remains unchanged.
In the 2013-2014 years’collection, 50% of CCHD Grants were given to Alinskyian organizations.  According to Stephanie Block, an expert on Allinskyian organizing, CCHD, under the guise of “charity,” channels money solicited from the faithful into groups that promote abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexual activism, and socialist economic  policies. Many CCHD-funded organizations are actively working to change Church teaching.
For forty-five years the CCHD has shamelessly pushed aside any corrective reform efforts, expanding its Alinskyian networks into more cities and exporting the twisted theology of Alinskyian organizing into other countries.
The Catholic Media Coalition and its individual member groups urge Catholics in the pew to “Just say NO!” to the CCHD collection this month.  Give your hard-earned money to groups that really serve the poor.
Watch the video below:
________________________
Note:  The Lepanto Institute, under the direction of Michael Hichborn, who was formerly director of American Life League’s Defend the Faith Project, has prepared two detailed reports for recent CCH funding periods – one of them being 2014-2015.
See: www.lepantoinstitute.org/cchd-grants-2014-2-15.
____________________________
About the Catholic Media Coalition:  The Catholic Media Coalition is an organization of Catholic writers, webmasters, editors, and others engaged in producing media for and about the Catholic Church.  Coming from all over the United States and members of different approved Catholic Rites, we welcome all practicing Catholic members of the media who are loyal to the Magisterium and Church teaching
Mission Statement: To report truthfully about the Catholic Church and to defend, foster, and spread authentic Catholic Faith and Culture.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

#### A GOOD GOD FEARING WOMAN GOES TO HER ETERNAL REWARD

    (Gloria was a fine decent woman who loved and lived her Catholic faith and ferociously fought for her faith and the rights of women. She was a true feminist.  Unlike the phony feminists of today,she fought for women's rights from the womb to the tomb. She was against the greatest domestic violence-abortion-the killing  of baby women in the womb.
     She,and her intrepid band of fighters fought former Bishop McVinney to keep  Bishop Hendricken high school viable when the Bishop wanted to close it down.The Bishop Hendricken community owe a hugh debt of gratitude to Gloria   today for her courage, fortitude,and tenacious defense of her Catholic faith and   its moral teachings and principles. BLL)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Gloria L. (Munroe) Lefoley
November 8, 2015

Gloria L. (Munroe) Lefoley, 86, of Warwick passed away on Sunday, November 8th, at Kent Hospital.  She was the beloved wife of Joseph G. Lefoley for 64 years.  Born in Providence, she was a daughter of the late Harry E. and Anna M. (Vaillancourt) Munroe.
   
Mrs. Lefoley was a Secretary in the Sales Department of Gorham Mfg. Co.  She was a graduate of St. Xavier Academy, class of 1947 and received her Associates Degree From Bryant Stratton College.  A communicant of St. Francis of Assisi Church in Warwick, she was a past president of the Ladies of St. Anne and a member of Catholics for Life.  Mrs. Lefoley was one of the first inductees into the Bishop Hendricken Hall of Fame.  She also enjoyed gardening.
   
She was the loving mother of Kathleen L. Wright and her companion Henry E. Hatcher of North Kingstown, Sheila M. Hopkins and her husband Stephen of Warwick, Stephen G. Lefoley and his wife Karen of Londonderry, NH, Christopher P. Lefoley and his wife Marian of Narragansett, Mary A. Armstrong and her husband Bill of North Kingstown, Martha H. Dean and her husband Edward of Warwick and Patrick J. Lefoley and his wife Phyllis of Wakefield.  Cherished grandmother of fifteen and great grandmother of one.  Caring sister of Harry Munroe and his wife Ann of Coventry and the late Lorraine Petit.
   
Her funeral will be held on Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:45 am from THE URQUHART-MURPHY FUNERAL HOME, 800 Greenwich Avenue, Route 5, Warwick (Exit 12A on I-95) with a Mass of Christian Burial at 10:00 am in St. Francis of Assisi Church, 596 Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick.  Burial will follow in St. Joseph Cemetery, West Greenwich.  Relatives and friends are invited.  Calling hours will be held on Wednesday from 4-7 pm. 
   
In lieu of flowers, gifts in her memory to St. Francis of Assisi Church, 596 Jefferson Blvd., Warwick, RI 02886 or St. Kevin Church, 333 Sandy Lane, Warwick, RI 02889 would be appreciated.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

#### PELOSI'S FRAUD APPOINTMENTS


Dems on new panel investigating Planned Parenthood got $81k from the abortion giant

November 6, 2015 (NewsBusters) -- It’s called following the money trail – and the media should do more of it.
On Wednesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed six Democrats to serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Select Investigative Panel examining Planned Parenthood after undercover videos condemned its practice of aborted baby parts. While journalists reported the news, they left out one key detail: those same six Democrats have received more than $81,000 from Planned Parenthood.
Leader Pelosi announced the news in a press release.
“I am proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health,” she began. “Hard-working families deserve better than a taxpayer-funded Republican Select Committee fixated on dismantling women’s health. As Republicans try to take affordable family planning and lifesaving preventive care away from millions of American women, Democrats will be in the room to fight for the truth.”
She then listed the Democratic Members serving on the “Select Committee to Attack Women’s Health”: Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which currently lists Planned Parenthood donations from 1998 through the 2016 elections cycles, the above representatives received nearly $80,000 from the abortion giant.
Here are the totals per politician:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky: $11,865
Rep. Jerrold Nadler: $5,535
Rep. Diana DeGette: $36,735
Rep. Jackie Speier: $4,000
Rep. Suzan DelBene: $19,232
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman: $2,500
But going back to 1990, Planned Parenthood has given the representatives more than $81,000.
Back when the Center for Responsive Politics listed donations going back to 1990, MRC Culture counted $13,115 for Rep. Jan Schakowsky in contributions from Planned Parenthood. Adding that number to the total of the others since 1998 ($68,002) brings the total to more than $81,000.
The history between the representatives and Planned Parenthood is too long to list, but here are some of the highlights:
Earlier this year, Rep. Schakowsky and Rep. Nadler sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General calling for an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress, which produced the undercover videos – not Planned Parenthood. Rep. Nadler has gone so far as to call the creators of the vidoes "liars in a long line of liars."
Rep. DeGette admitted in 2011 that she was a member of the Board of Directors for the Colorado Planned Parenthood "for several years" in the 1990s.
Rep. Speier has defended Planned Parenthood funding before, in 2011, when she publicized her own abortion.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

#### "RAZZLE DAZZLE" JUDGES IGNORE THE US CONSTITUTION

(Most judges,federal and state,are putting their own personal opinions as law.Abuses in the courts abound.
The three Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court where Chief Justice "razzle dazzle" Roberts changed the 
law on the bench and then ruled that his law was constitutional.Even first year law students know the basic
constitutional principle of separation of powers.But "razzle dazzle" Roberts seems to be oblivious to this
basic constitutional principle. BLL)   
November 2, 2015
Judiciary fronting for tyrannical government

By Larry Klayman

The federal courts are increasingly leaving the American people defenseless against government tyranny. Over 38 years as a lawyer and federal prosecutor, I have watched the judiciary abandon the checks and balances that once made our Constitution function.

Many Americans still expect that our courts will step in and right the wrongs, even against a political stampede. But, sadly, with few exceptions like D.C. federal judges Royce C. Lamberth, who during the Clinton administration found that "Slick Willy" had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who is about to again enjoin President Obama and his NSA from illegal mass surveillance on the entire citizenry, it is now a quaint notion that our courts can be trusted to enforce the law and fulfill every judge's oath to support and defend the Constitution.

The legal notion of standing is a key part of the decay. The Executive Branch has grown increasingly brazen in violating the law and the Constitution. For example, our so-called government, currently and generally represented by the "yes-men" of the Obama Justice Department in its Federal Programs Branch, then objects that no one can bring a lawsuit to challenge its illegal behavior.

But standing is a fiction invented by compromised judges who would rather put their heads in the sand than do their jobs. To take a strong stand and actually adjudicate politically charged issues could cost them a higher appointment some day, as both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are adept at tying up judicial and other executive branch nominations.

In this regard, appellate opinions recite in lofty terms an Article III requirement. But neither the word nor the concept appears in the Constitution. Legislation governing the courts doesn't mention standing. Over time, abuses have created ever-growing barriers. Even conscientious lower-court judges choose to follow ambiguous or even bad precedents.

Recently, my lawsuit against the Corker Bill – which turned the treaty ratification provisions of the Constitution on its head concerning Obama's disastrous Iran nuclear treaty – was dismissed for lack of standing. Congress violated the Constitution by changing the ratification of requirement of a two-thirds vote in the Senate. No treaty is valid unless ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The Constitution does not give a president any other power to create international agreements. The Corker Bill is unconstitutional because it overturns Article II, Sec. 2, Par. 2. A copy of our lawsuit is at FreedomWatchUSA.org.
stifiIncredibly, Congress just went through a charade of voting whether to approve or disapprove Obama's treaty of surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Without ratification by two-thirds of U.S. senators, the treaty is void. Yet, our entire Congress ignored the Constitution. And, in the case of Sen. Marco Rubio, who claims to be a champion of a strong Reaganesque foreign policy and raised tons of money claiming that he would block the treaty, he failed to show up to vote. (Presidential candidate Jeb Bush's recent attacks on Rubio's voting record are more than jued!)
In this regard, the Honorable Kenneth Marra, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dismissed my lawsuit against Rubio and my other Florida representatives – I am a Florida citizen having myself run for office there – for voting without my proxy for the unconstitutional Corker Bill, finding that the loss of my constitutional protections, the danger to me as a Florida citizen and an American from Iranian nuclear weapons is not concrete enough.

Judge Marra dismissed my lawsuit, stating: "The Supreme Court has also held that, based upon co-extensive prudential standing principles, an alleged injury that is 'a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens' does not constitute a specific injury-in-fact that warrants the exercise of a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)."

In other words, the more widely important an issue is, the more it affects many people throughout the country, the more the federal courts will strive to avoid getting involved. Yet, curiously, that principle never blocks lawsuits promoting a liberal environmental agenda.

Judge Marra also recited, "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." But they are limited in deference to state courts under the 10th Amendment. Limited jurisdiction does not mean refusing to enforce actual federal laws or the Constitution.

More than a hundred lawsuits challenged whether Obama is a natural born citizen, eligible to run for and be president. Not one of those lawsuits, several of which I filed in Florida, ever reached a decision on its merits. All were dismissed on standing, most without the courts even explaining their decision, as they had no bases to dismiss the cases since Florida's elections laws allow for such a challenge for fraud and misconduct by candidates for federal or state offices.

Originally, judges invented a pragmatic test with regard to a citizen's standing to sue. As Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 205 (1962) explained:

"Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult U.S. Constitutional questions? This is the gist of the question of standing."

The only legitimate purpose is to make sure that two parties do not bring a frivolous lawsuit in which actually they agree.

Yet standing depends upon where you sit. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide to prevent global warming. Their standing was that a hundred years from now some coastline could disappear if sea levels rise, assuming that computer models without empirical evidence are accurate, assuming that plants don't consume the carbon dioxide, assuming that world climate doesn't adjust in ways we don't understand, and assuming that sea levels do rise instead of evaporation causing more snow at the poles.

But "standing cannot be predicated upon an injury the plaintiff suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923). Yet the rules are suspended if the goal is expanding the size and reach of government. Global warming would affect all humanity. This should be the poster child for lacking standing.

By contrast, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lawsuit against Obama's executive order amnesty was dismissed on standing, and we will soon be on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. We documented $9,293,619.96 in hard costs from illegal aliens in Arpaio's jails in 2014 resulting from Obama's 2012 deferred action for "dreamers." Arpaio's harm is grounded in real-world, empirical experience. Yet the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said that was too speculative, although global warming is not.

If we had responsible elected officials, Congress does have authority to correct these abuses and double standards. The Congress can regulate the courts under Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1, and could remedy and overturn this nonsense. But will we have to wait until we elect a Congress who takes our Constitution seriously? Given the current state of affairs with gutless, do-nothing and hypocritical senators and congressmen like Marco Rubio and my representative, Patrick Murphy from Palm Beach County, that is likely to be never! And, that is why – absent more judges in addition to those few like Lamberth and Leon who will protect the citizenry from government tyranny – we are headed for revolution, 1776-style. Our Founding Fathers pledged their sacred fortunes and lives to restore our God given freedoms, and we now, 230 years later, have no choice but to do the same.

© Larry Klayman

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

#### SEX ABUSE IN CHURCH IS HOMOSEXUALITY





(Is the writer of this article homosexual or pro-homosexual???? Sodomite is a good description  of homosexuality,a life style based on the practice of sodomy.BLL)  

Is the ‘gay mafia’ behind the Synod on the Family?

By a priest who cares about the Church
November 3, 2015 (CatholicVoice) -- Is a homosexual agenda unduly influencing the outcome of the Synod on the family? It’s a question that needs to be raised because snippets gleaned from the Vatican in recent years seem to point in this direction. But before we explore this in more detail we need to underline the following points:
Our faith demands we respect people of same sex attraction. I am repulsed when homophobic terms like 'sodomite' are bandied around internet forums or people’s lives discussed in such a way that it robs them of dignity. There are many people of same sex attraction in the church whose lives and faith are worthy of admiration.
We should recognise that the presence of homosexual priests affects the church in different ways. Some are true celibates who, despite having an inclination towards same sex attraction, honour their ordination vows. Though its painful to admit, other homosexual priests are sexually active, and therefore flout church teaching, but they nevertheless uphold the moral standards of wider society. Within this group of sexually active homosexual priests will be those who are secretly partnered and monogamous as well as those who are more promiscuous. And finally there are deviants. Those who don't limit their sexual behavior to consenting adults but who hit on the young and vulnerable. The first group of celibate homosexual priests are no problem to the church, the next group are un-repentent sinners causing scandal but not a menace to society. The third group are clearly abusive and dangerous.
Impact of homosexual priests on the Church
Having made this distinction, between differing ways in which homosexual clergy deal with their sexuality, we may ask how the issue may impact on church decisions. But let us be clear. The purpose of this article is to shine a light on a possible agenda not to point fingers at any individual. Being favourable to a cause is not evidence that anybody is themselves part of it.
The Catholic Church has struggled to navigate the modern world in the wake of the sexual revolution and Vatican II. It is no secret that vocations, in particular, have been hit to the point of there being a dire shortage of priests in the West. And what tended to happen is that during the 1970's and 1980's the priesthood became an attractive option for gay men. And because the church was desperately short of vocations it was willing to turn a blind eye, so long as scandal was avoided. Thus a disproportionate number of gay men entered the church and settled into its ecclesial structures during the latter half of the 20th Century.
Most were young men raised in devout Catholic families at a time when homosexuality was taboo. By taking holy orders they not only ducked awkward questions from relatives and friends but also found a spiritual outlet for their confusion and, in some cases, guilt and self loathing. Seminary proved a happy home for such as these because they no longer battled alone but came into contact with like minded people. A deep fraternity built up between them and forged what would become an entire, secret subculture within the clerical ranks of the Catholic Church.
Some of these gay men were able to overcome their sexual urges and became truly celibate. But others found that they lacked the requisite self control. How could they remain within the church? The answer was to keep sexual activity amongst themselves to ensure that scandal was largely avoided. Coded language and certain looks were all it took for those interested in sexual activity to identify themselves to each other at clergy meetings and conventions. As regards the goal of protecting the church from public scandal the approach worked. The lay faithful remained ignorant as to the sexual lives of these men who were themselves content to remain closeted. Sure one or two occasionally left the priesthood to join the ‘gay scene’ but by and large things ticked over.
The Sex Abuse Crisis and the Homosexual Subculture
Problems arose only when the wicked amongst them did not keep to the unspoken rules. They began seducing the lay faithful and, in the worse instances, forced themselves onto young boys. We finally arrive at the crimes of the infamous sex abuse crisis. Independent studies show that the crimes of sex abuse were not so much paedophilic but homosexual in nature. Over 90% of the cases were instances of gay men hitting on post pubescent boys.
Naturally other gay priests, being decent men, were horrified at this behavior. But fear stemming from their own hidden lives prevented them from taking action. Priests who were themselves part of the gay subculture, or at least aware of it and accepting of it, found themselves open to blackmail and accusations of a certain degree of hypocrisy. The scandalous consequence was that priests, who should have been defrocked, were instead moved to another parish. What we now know in retrospect was that the gay network of priests looked after its own, even its most deplorable members, for fear of widespread exposure and scandal.
Clerical Careers and the Homosexual Subculture
Meanwhile the better behaved homosexual priests were growing older and gaining preferment. How hard it must have been for them to watch the world change its own attitude to homosexuality whilst they remained (and still remain) closeted. These men found themselves unable to join the party. This impossible tension between public face and private life came to light when the Cardinal Archbishop of Scotland caused scandal. Though he proved a strong defender of Church teaching in the public square it transpired he had also been hitting on seminarians when tipsy.
When you consider the impossibility of these men’s situation you begin to see why very close bonds formed between them. It is hardly surprising that nepotism may have crept in. The homosexual subculture became not only a social space but also a recruitment body. Not least for reasons of self preservation. And the higher these tortured souls rose in the church, the greater the fear of exposure must be. Thus it was that a ‘Gay Mafia’ sprang up and homosexual clerics found and created for themselves influential friends in high places.
The Vatican and the Gay Mafia
That is how one might image a homosexual subculture was formed. Now to the piecing together snippets of evidence from the Vatican.
In 2005 Pope Benedict asked the faithful to pray for him that he may not flee for “fear of the wolves". He also spoke of a “powerful gay lobby” at work in the highest levels of the Vatican. Pope Francis has referred to it too, so we know it exists. Furthermore, Pope Benedict’s instinct, in the wake of the abuse crisis, was to insist that men of “deep seated homosexual tendency” should be barred from the priesthood. A suggestion that he understood the true nature of the sex abuse crimes was not, in fact, pedophilic but homosexual.
Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!
Pope Benedict’s conclusion, unsurprisingly, was unpopular with the secular press who still refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence about the homosexual nature of the abuses And so Pope Benedict was pilloried for categorically upholding the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality. It is likely that Pope Benedict’s actions galvanized the powerful “Gay Mafia” to act against him. Clearly the secular world and its media, in the wake of the rainbow revolution, was in their pocket.
The St Gallen Group and the Gay Mafia
Now in 2015, Cardinal Danneels of Belgium, accused of covering up sexual abuse by priests, has publically announced his role in the covert "St. Gallen Group", which he refers to as a “mafia group”! This is a cabal who plotted behind the scenes, not only to trick Benedict into abdication, but also to put Francis on the throne. Could they be the wolves to whom Benedict referred? And what is their relationship, if any, to this shadowy Gay Mafia? Whether implicated or not, and this writer has no evidence either way, the St Gallen group members are certainly clamouring for a volte face in the Church’s doctrine and pastoral care of homosexuals.
And there is also support for such a cause outside of the St. Gallen group. In the West there are Cardinals of a certain generation who support a softening of tone in this regard. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, for example, defended the controversial “Soho Gay Masses” at some cost to himself and is on public record demanding more generous language as regards homosexuality. Whether such men are part of any lobby or subculture themselves cannot be known. But what we do see is that they certainly support the cause in general.
The Gay Mafia and the Synod on the Family
Regarding the shadowy St. Gallen Mafia, questions are now being raised about Pope Francis’s relationship with this group, and its influence on the Synod. Cardinal Danneels has publicly admitted that Pope Francis was their favoured candidate at the 2005 and 2013 Conclaves. Is Pope Francis "their man", as they themselves claim. This appears at least a feasible possibility given how many of the St Gallen cardinals were sprung out of retirement and have been given a voice by the Holy Father at the two Synods on the Family . This begs a further question: why are these Synods on the family saying little new or of value to actual families but obsessing about homosexuality? Could it be the influence of the Gay Lobby? This scenario needs to be considered by any watching the Synod with interest.
Are we in fact witnessing the demands of a clerical homosexual subculture being imposed on the Catholic Church at large? Is the demand for a softening of language and rules to placate those, who like the recently self-outed Fr. Charasma, have one foot in the Church and another in the gay scene? Is the Gay Mafia now influencing the doctrine and pastoral principles of the Church instead of bishops and priests faithful to the Gospel and Magisterium of the church? If so, we face a very grave crisis indeed. It is entirely possible.
The difficulty for homosexual clerics seeking to overturn the doctrine and pastoral practice of the Church, of course, is that such a campaign is so clearly at odds with the Tradition of the church in all ages and the crystal clear message of Scripture. This is why we are witnessing the division of the Synod into opposing camps. The Gay Mafia may wield great power at present in the high counsels of the Church but there are still brave cardinals, bishops and priests resisting them, most notably in Africa and Asia. Thus the fight for the soul of the church is on. The Gay Mafia want a change of teaching at best but will settle, one suspects, for a shift of pastoral practice under the guise of a rather dishonest understanding of mercy. The true defenders of the faith are having none of it for they see clearly that a move to betray our Lord’s Gospel is underway.
If this article has put the jigsaw together properly we must surmise that the sex abuse crisis is not over for the Church. The secular and Catholic media’s failure to report it accurately, and an over focus on paedophilia not homosexuality meant that sexually active gay men hiding behind dog collars remain free to betray their vows as priests. Having avoided exposure so far they have grown in confidence to the point they may even have called this Synod in the first place, not to speak of family life but to fight for their cause. What is chilling as we watch the second Synod unfold is that high ranking voices in the Vatican are confirming that the question of Holy Communion for divorced and re-married is a smoke-screen and that the homosexuality is the Synod’s true agenda.
Reprinted with permission from Catholic Voice

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

#### OUR "DNA" TELLS US WHO AND WHAT WE ARE

Synod Confronts ‘Gender Ideology,’ Threat to Education

 
An adiutor, or expert, at the Synod on the Family in Rome says that the growing threat to families from the spread of gender ideology, particularly the danger it poses to all levels of education, has been discussed at length during the Synod.

“[Gender ideology] has enormous implications for Catholic education at every level – including college,” said Dr. John Grabowski in an interview with The Cardinal Newman Society. Grabowski is a professor of moral theology and ethics at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and an adiutor assisting the Special Secretary and the Relator at the Synod. “The concern about ‘gender ideology’ has been discussed in the Synod, both in the general assembly and in small groups.”

“College students are growing up in a culture that tells them that they are self-creating subjects whose personal reality is constituted by their own perception of their bodies and attractions,” Grabowski noted.
An adiutor, or expert, at the Synod on the Family in Rome says that the growing threat to families from the spread of gender ideology, particularly the danger it poses to all levels of education, has been discussed at length during the Synod.
“[Gender ideology] has enormous implications for Catholic education at every level – including college,” said Dr. John Grabowski in an interview with The Cardinal Newman Society. Grabowski is a professor of moral theology and ethics at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and an adiutor assisting the Special Secretary and the Relator at the Synod. “The concern about ‘gender ideology’ has been discussed in the Synod, both in the general assembly and in small groups.”
“College students are growing up in a culture that tells them that they are self-creating subjects whose personal reality is constituted by their own perception of their bodies and attractions,” Grabowski noted. “We need to provide them with an alternative anthropology informed by the equal dignity and irreducible personal difference of men and women created in the image of God.”
“There needs to be more attention given to the reality and import of sexual difference within the understanding of the human person,” he said.
Last week, Catholic News Agency reported that the majority of the 13 small groups discussing the Synod’s working document “are in agreement that gender ideology poses a serious challenge for families in the modern world.”
“In Italy, bishops have been constantly fighting over the past year against attempts to introduce textbooks into the nation’s schools that present gender theory as a fact,” according to Catholic News Agency. One Italian small group reportedly agreed that the Synod text should “more widely refer to the risks of gender ideology, as well [as] to the negative influence it has on scholastic programs of many countries.”
Another Italian small group reportedly affirmed that the “ideological character of gender ideology” must be emphasized “in order to lend families a hand so that they can take back their original right to educate children in a responsible dialogue with other educative agencies.”
Grabowski cited Pope Benedict XVI’s final Christmas address to the Roman Curia as “one of the most profound analyses of the [gender ideology] issue.”
The address “describes the separation of gender from sex by Simone de Beauvoir and second wave existentialist feminism,” Grabowski explained. “[F]or de Beauvoir and others, gender was a cultural construct. Now [society] regards it as self-chosen and self-created.”
“Obviously, we need to affirm the dignity and treat with respect and understanding people who are confused about their embodiment, what used to be called ‘gender identity disorder,’ especially when these are children,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean we should create confusion or hardship for others.”
Grabowski added that along with resisting gender ideology, Catholic education must work to impart the true meaning of marriage to students.
“In Catholic colleges and schools at other levels, we need a clearer and deeper understanding of the reality of marriage as a sacrament, especially the power of grace within it,” he said. “We need to make clear that the indissolubility of marriage is not just a legal requirement of Church law, but rooted in Jesus’ own teaching on the nature of marriage and rooted in the very concept of marriage as a sacrament.”

#### LIBERALS VS.PROGRESSIVES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

(The following article is from the Latin Mass Society website

and gives an insight into the ongoing confusion in the Catholic church. BLL)

 

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

If the good guys win at the Synod




I wasn't around for the Second Vatican Council and its immediate aftermath, but on the basis of what I've read about those years, I feel as if I am watching an action-replay.

One thing to remember about it is that the terrible things which happened after the Council came after the promulgation of documents which had been much tweaked in a conservative direction, documents which the more conservative bishops felt they could, after all, support, since they were quite capable of being read in a way consistent with traditional views. For example, it was quite late in the proceedings that one famous sentence of the document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, assumed its final form:

'there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them'

with the addition of the phrase 'genuinly and certainly', 'vera et certa'. With this in the document, what more could anyone ask?
All sorts of qualifying footnotes and subclauses went into the documents of the Council to acheive the consensus votes which were thought to be appropriate - and rightly so. But the disasters which befell the Church afterwards still happened.

Before anyone says that it was all wonderful, wonderful, wonderful after the Council, and only curmugeonly traddies like me think differently, let me just quote our three post-Conciliar Popes on the subject (not counting JP I).
Bl. Pope Paul VI: This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty.  
Pope St John Paul III would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament.
Pope Benedict XVI: in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

I would strongly suggest to all Catholics that, if the conservatives at the Synod declare victory, we should congratulate them heartily, and then start digging an air-raid shelter in the garden.

One thing we have to understand is the way liberals read documents. Their scriptural exegesis illustrates the point. They don't read a whole passage or letter or whatever and come to a balanced view of what points are being made there - that would be boring. Instead, they take a bit they like, and instead of reading it in the context of the rest, they use it as an 'interpretive key' of the rest: they read, or ignore, the rest of the document through that one passage. Usually it is an isolated sentence, or even a stray phrase. Thus, they see St Paul's words 'there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female', (Galatians 3:28), and instead of asking what, in context, he meant by that, they take it as meaning what they want it to mean, which today is something approaching gender theory, and proceed to interpret, or ignore, everything else St Paul wrote to fit their weird understanding of that one phrase. So despite everything St Paul says, at length and with great emphasis, about the differences between the sexes, liberals will quote this phrase to show that female ordination is demanded by Scripture. Nothing else St Paul wrote makes any difference, because it all needs to be understood through this 'key'.

The 'Spirit of Vatican II' works in a similar way. The argument here is that, again looking at an isolated passage in a particular document, the Council moved the Church from being in favour (for example) of traditional religious dress with all the trimmings, or a completely Latin liturgy, to the point at which we are asked to consider if all the trimmings are appropriate to modern conditions, or to consider the use of the vernacular for some parts of the Mass. What we need to take from the Council, the liberals claimed, is not the document's final, stated, position - habits and Latin should emphatically be retained - but the direction of movement. It is therefore a matter of 'obedience to the Council' to continue that movement: it is obedient to the Council, in fact, to violate the Council's clear words, and jettison habits, and Latin, altogether. To insist on what the Council actually said is to disobey the Council.

Conservatives were at a huge disadvantage in debating the meaning of such texts with liberals, because they wanted to adopt a balanced and docile position which drew from the documents whatever might be of value in them. They felt obliged to go along with a huge amount of very disruptive and damaging changes in the hope that they would have good results - which of course they might have had, at least in many cases, if they had stopped there - which merely conceded to the liberals a good half of what they wanted. It was then far harder to resist the further changes which the liberals undertook under cover of the confusion and controversy. The conservatives did the liberals' work for them by overcoming the inertia inherant in any stable institution, getting the ball rolling, by an often ham-fisted authoritarianism.

With hindsight, it would have been better to say that, since the Council's comments on these and many other matters were nothing more than recommendations on matters of prudential judgement, the vast can of worms they offered to open should remain closed until a more auspicious moment presented itself.

With the Synod on the Family, that won't be an option in the same way, but the liberals' ability to snatch victory from the jaws of stalemate is undiminished. The very fact that the issues are being debated is a huge gain for the liberal side of the argument. The very fact that certain frankly disedifying statements from the bishops' interventions are being quoted in the press - accurately or not - moves the debate immeasurably in their favour.

I read today that one bishop thought the 'language of indissolubility' needs to be changed. Words fail me. That this should be said at a Synod in Rome undermines the certainty of doctrine which has, on this topic, survived in the public perception of the Church. That certainty, in public perception, is of immense value. Take that away, and all hell breaks loose.

If the good guys win at the Synod, the liberals will still win. If the good guys clearly and publicly lose, then the results will immediate and catastrophic. I expect, however, that some formula will be found to maintain a consensus, a formula which could be seen as a victory for the conservatives, at least by comparison with the demands of some of the liberals. The point is, this will still be a victory for the liberals. They will take the concessions made to them, they will act as if they won twice as much, and they will be back for more.

I don't believe in an inevitable victory for the liberal side of the debate in the long term - quite the contrary - but the Synod, like Vatican II, has brought together a balance of forces which is clearly not going to conclude with a triumphant reassertion of the traditional view. Things are going to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.