In Spain, a TV network called Intereconomia has just been fined by the socialist government for ads that allegedly “attack the dignity” of homosexuals.  Sounds pretty serious, eh?  So what horrible things did the TV network show in its ads?  After all, as Christians, we may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but we still want to show them respect.  So what heinous ads did the TV network show?

The ads are essentially clips of homosexuals parading themselves half-naked and making obscene gestures during their annual “gay pride” parade.

The scenes, which are typical of such “pride” events, are so lewd that Google requires viewers to state that they are at least 18 years of age before showing the YouTube version.

In one of the ads, the images are interposed with a series of questions, including “is this the society that you want?” and whether or not the viewer would like to “support this with public money?” It ends with the question: “Proud? Of what?”

Another shows a series of photographs of homosexual activists followed by photos depicting families and children, and concludes, “One day of gay pride, 364 days of pride for normal, everyday people.”  (Source)

The irony of this situation blows the mind.  Showing actual footage of homosexuals misbehaving in public and questioning this deviant behaviour is somehow an “attack” against homosexuals?  In other words, the behaviour of these people is so self-deprecating, self-incriminating and damaging to their own image that it would harm the gay movement if everyday people were allowed to see the clips.  Isn’t that insane?  It’s as absurd as if Jack Layton were to say: “Don’t associate my name with the NDP because it will cost me votes.”  How irrational can we be?  How low can we go?

This is outright oppression on the part of a socialist government.  This is the same government that recently loosened abortion laws and implemented homosexual “marriage”.  They have an axe to grind because Intereconomia has been very critical of the government in the past.  Intereconomia has also done some good pro-life work, most notably by having an undercover reporter infiltrate an abortion clinic with a video camera and expose illegal practices.  You can watch that eye-opening video here (WARNING: GRAPHIC FOOTAGE OF REAL ABORTIONS.  VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED).

This fine is purely ideological and suppresses freedom of speech in Spain.  Please pray for our persecuted brethren.

Last October at the Plenary, Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) was part of a panel presentation on the topic.  He emphasized the importance for bishops to assume greater leadership in pro-life activities.

Referring to the recent debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as debates on other life issues, Bishop Fabbro noted the importance of being pro-active in framing the questions. “If Bishops don’t step up,” he said, “others will who may present a distorted view of the Church’s teaching. We need to inform our people on the foundations of our faith.”

In his presentation, Archbishop Blanchet noted the tensions and difficulties that have emerged among individuals and groups involved in defending the right to life from conception to natural death. He stressed the importance being united in thought and action, and proposed a dialogue involving all parties in the “pro-life movement”. Such a dialogue, he said, would help lessen difficulties within the movement and also help establish common ground.

In their reflections, the Bishops stressed there was an important link between the sacredness of human life and the quality of life. They also noted the importance of activities for life at the diocesan level. (Source)

So just to recap, they seem to have three broad areas where they’ve committed to act (deliverables):

1. More proactive teaching on life issues
2. Dialogue with pro-life groups
3. More activities at the diocesan level

Here we are, 9 months later, enough time for a couple to conceive and bear a new child.  However, the CCCB still hasn’t given birth to any of these deliverables. It sounded so promising, but it has fallen flat.

The most disconcerting aspect, to me, is deliverable #2: dialogue with pro-life groups.  This was the easiest part, by far.  But what did we get instead?  A heinous and slanderous document issued by Development and Peace containing these vicious attacks:

“These groups are part of the far right wing fringe element of North American society and have themselves been associated with groups and individuals who have resorted to violence to publicize their cause and achieve their objectives.”

“These single-issue militant advocacy groups, particularly those focusing on anti-abortion advocacy, continuously misrepresent facts and distort reality to serve their purpose.”

Despite the fact that the document was widely and publicly distributed in mid-March, it took D&P until the end of June – more than three months — to issue an apology, and only after being threatened with a defamation lawsuit.

The outrageous D&P document had been forwarded to some bishops in March by a number of concerned Canadians, but it still took more than three months for the apology to come. Besides, to my knowledge, none of the bishops have since apologized for D&P’s actions.

I’d say that the CCCB has actually regressed on deliverable #2 rather than made any progress.  Wouldn’t you?

That being said, pro-lifers are willing to put that incident behind us and move forward with some positive cooperation with the CCCB.  Let’s forget the past and build the future.

To do this, the bishops need to do more than issue a letter or press release condemning euthanasia and assisted suicide.  That’s a start, but it’s not nearly enough.  No offense, but very very few people read the press releases issued by the CCCB.  Moreover, the mainstream media often won’t provide any coverage and most parishes won’t mention them.

If the bishops are serious about this, they need to work with pro-life groups to take more concrete actions from a pastoral perspective.  Here are some concrete examples:

• They should reform marriage preparation courses so that the Theology of the Body becomes mandatory teaching.  They should also instruct engaged couples about the evil of contraception and abortion.
• They should encourage their parishioners to be active in the pro-life movement by volunteering their time and by making donations to pro-life ministries.
• Every bishop should participate in pro-life marches across the country each May because it isn’t very difficult to book off 1 day per year for a good cause. Fortunately, we’ve seen increased participation in the last two years.  This is good news.  It needs to grow.
• They should take a public stand against politicians who support abortion, telling them that they cannot receive communion.
• They should publicly rescind the Winnipeg Statement.

Do you think I’m too demanding?  I don’t.  Anything short of such actions will just be the same old, same old.  Anything short of such actions won’t make a dent in the growing apathy among Canadian Catholics.

An Anglican priest has apologized for offering communion to a dog, but the act has repercussions for a Church already divided by liberalization measures.

(…)
Marguerite Rea, the interim priest at St. Peter’s Anglican Church in Toronto, offered Trapper — a four-year-old German Shepherd-Rhodesian Ridgeback cross — communion during a church service in late June. It quickly became symbolic of an ever-widening theological rift between the conservative brand of Anglicanism observed by ANIC congregations, which, for example, reject same-sex marriage, and a more liberal-leaning Anglican Church of Canada that condones the rite. (Source)

I guess if it’s just a piece of bread, what’s the big deal, right?  I mean, if communion isn’t the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, then how is it different from a potato chip or even Beef & Bacon Flavoured Beggin’ Strips? (My mom’s pooch loves those.)

Some Anglicans were not amused, however, and this has set off yet another round of internal conflicts and divisions.  Cheryl Chang, director of the Anglican Network in Canada, said: “Communion is a symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus’s body; he died for all of us. But I don’t recall anything from the Scripture saying anything about Jesus dying for the salvation of our pets.’’

Some Anglicans, on the other hand, are wondering what the fuss is about.  Listen to this quote from Duncan Keith, the owner of the dog:

“Holy smokes. This is small stuff. I thought it was innocent and it made me think of the blessing of the animals. This has blown me away. The church is even getting emails from Catholics.”

Yeah, I can see how some Catholics would be upset.

The priest, for her part, apologized for the incident and said it was just a way of welcoming a stranger, nothing more.  Does that sound a bit flippant with regards to something she should hold sacred?

A commentator in the magazine First Things had this to say:

“The intention might be to make a visitor feel comfortable, but the real message being sent is that the members of the church don’t take communion seriously—so newcomers shouldn’t take it seriously either,” commentator Joe Carter wrote on First Things, a magazine website dedicated to religious issues in the wider culture. “But if nothing is sacred, then you no longer have a church; you just have a religious club that is going to the dogs.”(Source)

I’m afraid the Anglican Church in Canada will experience more growing pains dislocation pains as the liberals keep pushing the envelope away from Christianity.

Out with the communists!

Communists angry after Kerala bishops urge vote for ‘God-fearing’ candidates

July 21, 2010

Bishops in Kerala– the southwestern Indian state that has been the Church’s stronghold in India since its evangelization by St. Thomas the Apostle– told the faithful in a July 18 pastoral letter to vote for “good, capable, and God-fearing” candidates.

The bishops’ letter prompted a rebuke from Thomas Isaac, the state’s Communist finance minister, who accused the bishops of “meddling in politics.” The Communist Party of India has more members in Kerala than in any other Indian state.

“We are not against religion but we will resist the move of religious leaders interfering in politics,” said Isaac. (Source)

Ain’t this the truth?

Think of all of the Catholic scandals that have been exposed and the frauds that have been busted.

Viva the internet!

On Sunday January 3, 2010 (Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord), Fr. Gravel gave a homily entitled “L’universalité du salut!“, which means “the universality of salvation!”.  Sounds like a good title for the Epiphany, right?  Let’s see what else he says.

The first paragraph isn’t too bad, although I find it curious that he speaks of the “science” of astrology in an apparent reference to the Wise Men’s utilization of a star to locate Jesus.  I would hardly rank astrology as a “science”.  But let’s not linger on such petty details.  We have bigger fish to fry today.

The second paragraph of his homily reads as follows (my translation):

1. Faith: certainty or hope? What has always harmed the Faith is the certainty of those who think they possess the truth about God and the world. How much suffering has been inflicted on people because of these false certainties? How many illusions taken for realities? How many condemnations and exclusions in the name of a pseudo-truth? It seems to me that the biblical texts of this Feast teach us that faith is never a certainty, but a path of hope that we need to take each day without knowing where it will lead us. (Source)

Herein lies the foundation for most of Fr. Gravel’s dissent.  He rejects the possibility that humans can know the Truth when it comes to God.  This means that he doesn’t understand or recognize Divine Revelation and the Church’s infallible charism for transmitting Divine Revelation throughout history.  Such a statement necessarily means a rejection of the teaching authority of the Magisterium.  In Fr. Gravel’s paradigm, I can’t help but wonder why Jesus would have bothered to come to Earth if nobody would be able to know the Truth he taught.  This attitude sets the groundwork for his relativistic attitude towards so many Church teachings.

But he doesn’t simply deny that we can possess Truth, he seems disgusted by those who claim to possess it, saying that they are responsible for all kinds of “harm”, “suffering”, “condemnations” and “exclusions”.  It’s true that some people have abused Christianity and used it to justify some atrocities.  Although these incidences are most unfortunate, they were not representative of the Faith.  That’s why they’re called abuses and roundly denounced by anybody who has their head screwed on straight.  But Fr. Gravel doesn’t make this distinction.  Any truth, it seems, is a menace.  This is a very imbalanced perspective.  He pursues this idea even further in the fourth paragraph of his homily when he states:

How many religions today have taken over from the people of Israel at the time of Isaiah and have the certainty of being in the truth?  They think they own God!  How many wars, conflicts and massacres have been and continue to be provoked by religious fundamentalism that possesses the truth?

Is that a statement becoming of a Catholic priest, or any Christian for that matter?  Sounds more like atheist rhetoric to me.

Returning to the first quote above, the last sentence of that paragraph would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.  He claims that Scripture says that Faith is never a certainty, but rather a path of hope.  I think he’s alluding to the Gospel reading about the journey of the Wise Men who followed a star without knowing exactly what was in store for them (Matt 2:1-12).  This notion of Scripture is absolutely absurd.  One could concede that at the individual level, faith isn’t a certainty because it can’t necessarily be scientifically observed or proven in a manner that would convince 100% of humanity.  So there’s some uncertainty for the individual as he/she makes the decision to believe.  But Scripture itself is not ambiguous about the Truth it proclaims.  No way, José. In Sacred Scripture, Almighty God makes his “sales pitch”, so to speak, to convince humanity of his love, faithfulness and holiness, as well as his loving plan of salvation for us.  Scripture is presented in no uncertain terms.  The Truth is exposed in a confident, assertive and even forceful manner, without any wobbles, haziness or doubt. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it.  God makes definite promises, not wishy-washy insinuations on which he may choose to backtrack on a whim.  The only uncertainty when it comes to faith is whether the individual chooses to accept the Truth that is exposed in Scripture.

Here’s another example of Fr. Gravel’s sheer ignorance of Scripture.  One of our readers kindly forwarded to me an email exchange he had with Fr. Gravel.  The priest kept arguing that Christ never condemned anybody in the Gospels. Although the reader presented examples of how Christ condemned the scribes and Pharisees, Fr. Gravel didn’t seem to understand.  The reader then proceed to explain how, for example, St. Paul spends a lot of time in his epistles condemning errors and false teachings in which his communities had fallen.  This is the reply from Fr. Gravel:

Mr. FG, once again, you can’t read… I said that Christ never condemned anybody… You tell me the opposite and to justify yourself you quote St. Paul… Since when did St. Paul become Christ?  I respect the Apostle Paul just as I respect all the others, but I’m talking about the gospels and in the gospels, Christ never condemned anybody.

Original in French:

Monsieur FG, Encore une fois, vous ne savez pas lire… J’ai dit que le Christ n’a jamais condamné… Vous me dites le contraire et pour vous justifier, vous citez saint Paul… Depuis quand saint Paul est-il le Christ ? Je respecte l’apôtre Paul comme je respecte tous les autres, mais je vous parle des évangiles, et dans les évangiles, le Christ ne condamne personne.

So is the New Testament only composed of the four gospels?  Are the other books of the New Testament not Divine Revelation?  Are St. Paul and Jesus not on the same wave length?  This is preposterous.

[Note: the dots (...) that appear frequently in the quote above reflect exactly the way Fr. Gravel wrote the email.  He inserted those dots.  No text has been deleted on my part to shorten the quote.  That's just his style.]

Sadly, this is just another example of Fr. Gravel’s confusion.  Please pray for him and for his bishop.

Also, please write a quick email to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to express your concerns: cdf@cfaith.va

“It’s not enough simply to oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia,” said Harold Albrecht (Kitchener-Conestoga), the Conservative co-chair of a new Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care (PCPCC).  “We have to go deeper than that and ask why people are even considering it. … How can we improve the palliative care in our country so that the question won’t even need to be asked?” (Source)

This is a brilliant move.  After all, people desiring to end their life must be undergoing extreme suffering and distress.  If we have any compassion, we should support them.  This should primarily be done by family and friends, but to the extent that health care services can be improved to help, then we should do it.

For once that MPs are doing the right thing, please take a moment to thank them.

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions. (Source)

1. The battle for life is mainly a spiritual battle.  Satan is front and centre in the Culture of Death.  As such, spiritual weapons must figure prominently in our arsenal through prayer and fasting.  But prayer should not be our only weapon.  Activism is important too.  Notice how the priests didn’t pray from the comfort of their home or their church.  They went on the sidewalk outside the abortuary and stood together with lay people carrying signs.
2. Never underestimate the power of prayer, which derives its source from Almighty God Himself.  So keep praying!

40 Days for Life will be starting up again this fall throughout North America.  We’ll be doing it here in Ottawa at the Morgentaler abortuary at 65 Bank Street.  I’ll speak to John to see if we can’t get a “posse” of priests together for some exorcism prayers.  If you know a priest that might be interested, please speak to him first and then ask him to contact us at pacheco377@gmail.com.

In the meantime, God has blessed Ottawa with a great ministry called Helpers of God’s Precious Infants – Ottawa.  They’re always praying and counseling at the abortuary during its business hours.  If you’d like to sign up and unleash the power of prayer, please contact them.

Watch the video below.  Details of the story, with another video, can also be read here.

By Kathleen Gilbert

URBANA, Illinois, July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A University of Illinois professor fired for explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality has gathered several thousands of students, alumni, and others – including the head of the the University’s atheist club – demanding that the Catholic professor be reinstated. (Source)

The university will be investigating the firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell.  I suggest you drop them a line to put in your 2 cents worth:

Office of Public Affairs
(217) 333-5010
publicaffairs@illinois.edu

The Church’s teaching on sex has been enlightened by the Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II.

In the beginning, when God created the universe, He made human beings as male and female, with very strong sexual desires for each other. When God finished all His Creation, He said it was very good (Gen 1:31).

Scripture tells us that humans are made in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:27). One of the key characteristics of humans that make them similar to God is their possession of intellect and free will, which enables them to reason and chose between good and evil. John Paul II said that our bodies, created as male and female, are also in the image of God.  Of course, God is not a sexual being.  “God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes” (CCC 370).  Yet, there is something about our being as male and female that is a reflection of the nature of God.

What is God?  St. John uses the simple formulation, “God is love.” (1 Jn 4:8) From all eternity, the Father has loved the Son and the Son has loved the Father.  This mutual communion of love is so perfect that it represents a third Divine Person, the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Trinity is essentially an eternal communion of love between Three Divine Persons.

The deepest and most profound expression of love that a man and a woman can have for each other is sexual union.  John Paul II taught that sexual union is meant to be a symbol and a participation in that inner love of the Trinity.  God wants us to share in the life of the Trinity and He enabled this is a particular way by creating us as male and female.

After all, the most common analogy of the relationship between God and humanity in the Bible is that of the Bridegroom and bride. The Bible is a story about a mystical marriage between God and His Church. In Heaven, this marriage will finally be consumed, as we will be united forever in perfect love with God. The sexual union of man and woman is meant to be a foreshadowing of this union in Heaven.  St. Paul makes this clear in his interpretation of marriage as described in the book of Genesis:  “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh. This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church.” (Eph 5:31-32)

Every human being has an inner urge to love and to be loved.  God created us that way. This urge can only be entirely fulfilled by union with God.  During our life on earth, this urge leads us naturally to marriage and to sexual union with our spouse, which is meant to be a foreshadowing of the ultimate union with God in eternity. However, although marriage is beautiful and holy, the couple must realize that they are not the ultimate fulfilment for each other.  Only God can fully satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart.

Since marriage and sexual union are meant to be a participation in the inner life and love of the Trinity, the couple’s love must imitate the love of God.  As Jesus said: “Love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). To love as Jesus loves is the very meaning of life and is the only road to true happiness on earth.

So how does Jesus love?  By a free, total, faithful and fruitful gift of Himself to us (1). Those four key characteristics of Jesus’ love become particularly evident in the gift of His life on the Cross and of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.  Hence, sexual union will only be faithful to its authentic purpose of imitating God’s love if the man and woman give themselves to each other in a free, total, faithful and fruitful manner. Sexual intercourse aimed at using the other person for selfish gratification is not an authentic expression of sexual union and is a gross distortion of God’s beautiful plan for sexuality. Likewise, contraception takes away the total and fruitful dimensions of the sexual act and distorts it.

Interestingly, the four characteristics of true love are exactly what a couple commits to in their marriage vows, which implies that the true meaning and fulfilment of sexual union can only be achieved within the context of marriage. In fact, the sexual union can be seen as the renewal of the couple’s wedding vows through the free, total, faithful and fruitful gift to each other through their entire being, body and soul (2).  By loving each other as God loves, the couple is fulfilling the meaning of their existence and being (3).

Some people, even Christians, see these teachings on sexuality as an illegitimate interference of the Church in their private lives. They would rather live sex “their own way.” They somehow believe that sex will be ‘better’ if God is left out of it. This poses a logical contradiction: if the very source of love is not welcome during sexual intercourse, can the act truly be a reflection of the love of the Trinity as it is meant to be? Without condemning them, these reluctant individuals need to understand that the Church’s teaching on sexuality is not meant to be a burden but rather a helpful guide to ensure that Christians speak the language of the body in truth. “The Church’s sexual ethic begins to make sense when viewed through this lens.  It’s not a prudish list of prohibitions.  It’s a call to embrace our own ‘greatness,’ our own God-like dignity.  It’s a call to live the love we’re created for.” (1)

When considering whether a particular sexual act is morally correct or not, Christians only need to ask themselves: Would this act be a reflection of God’s free, total, faithful, and fruitful love?  “Masturbation, fornication, adultery, intentionally sterilized sex, homosexual acts, etc. – none of these image God’s free, total, faithful, and fruitful love.  None of these behaviors express and renew wedding vows.  They aren’t marital.  Does this mean people who behave in such ways are ‘inherently evil?’  No.  They’re just confused about how to satisfy their genuine desires for love.” (1)

It is also important to note that marriage is not a license that makes all sexual behavior acceptable. Not all instances of sexual intercourse between a married couple are truly “marital” in the sense of imaging God’s love.  A married couple can still fall into the deception of lust and use each other for their personal gratification.  This would not be authentic marital love. The same could be said of the use of contraception.  As bluntly explained by Christopher West:  “When a couple uses contraception, the spouses are really saying that they prefer the momentary pleasure of a sterilized orgasm over the possibility of participating in the inner life of the Trinity” (2).

Every human being experiences lust, which prompts us to use others to obtain sexual gratification without making a true gift of ourselves.  Given our fallen nature, we may be tempted to believe that authentic marital love is a lofty and unattainable ideal. However, we must remember that Christ came to redeem every part of Creation, even our lustful desires, so that through grace we can realistically hope to live sexuality as God meant it to be.

In sum, the true purpose of sexuality needs to be better understood, particularly among the youth.  Rather than condemn them, we need to lovingly teach them that the vision of sexuality generally disseminated in the world will not lead them to the true happiness that they are searching for – which only comes through sharing in the inner love of the Trinity.  Only genuine marital sex within the context of marriage can lead them to a complete fulfillment of the meaning of their existence.

References:

(1) West, Christopher (2004):  “What Is the Theology of the Body & Why Is It Changing So Many Lives?”

(2) West, Christopher (2003): “Marriage and the Eucharist”, CD distributed by the Mary Foundation.

(3) Pope John Paul II (1980):  “The Human Person Becomes a Gift in the Freedom of Love”, Homily during the General Audience of January 16, 1980.

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With Kenya’s pivotal referendum on a new pro-abortion constitution just a few weeks away, three pro-life congressmen have brought forward more evidence that the U.S. federal government has heavily invested in procuring the approval of the document – to the tune of $28 million. The U.S. has also enlisted pro-abortion groups to convince Kenyans to approve the constitution, they said, despite the existence of federal laws prohibiting such activity. (Source)

Ah yes!  Of course!  Isn’t this the same as what Development and Peace is doing in many countries of the Global South?  I.e. funding pro-abortion groups that are lobbying to overturn legislation in order to legalize abortion?  We’ve certainly seen it in the Philippines, Peru, El Salvador and East Timor, to name a few off the top of my head.

Actually, in the case of East Timor, the pro-aborts succeeded and abortion was legalized under some circumstances in June 2009.  The blood of those babies is on our hands.

I’d like to share a couple items with you which you may be interested in…

1) Faith and Politics 101 – When faith moves us to action –

This Thursday July 22nd St. Maurice will host an evening seminar on Effective Activism and Political Mobilization. This seminar will run from 7 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The seminar is offered by the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies and will be delivered by Garnett Genuis. The event will be preceded by an informal dinner especially for young adults with local Catholic politican Pierre Lemieux, MP, who will share how his faith complements his politics. Dinner’s at 6 in the atrium, please bring $6 and we’ll order in pizza. (Source) 

2) School, Sodomy, and Your Kids:

If you are one of the few parents who still have their heads in the sand about the serious “sex” threats of the publicly funded school system (Catholic or Secular) to your children, then it’s time for you to a) wake up and b) get mobilized and do something about it. Personally, I think it’s too late, but there are those who think the system is still worth fighting for. So I’m passing on these initiatives to help them out….

Concerned Catholic Parents of Ottawa: Mobilization for the upcoming trustee elections - Yes, that’s right. There are things called “elections” where you can actually vote for politicians called “trustees” who actually help shape the direction of Catholic education of your children. This October 25, be sure to get out and vote in the municipal elections. Better yet, get informed about where your trustee candidate stands (if he’s just there to maintain the status quo or if he is willing to stand up to the Homosexualists at Queer’s Park). Better still, consider running as a trustee, yourself. If not you, then who? Check out this website of a concerned father here in Ottawa who is trying to do something about it:

http://concernedparentsottawa.blogspot.com/

Is there no recourse for the citizens against a dictatorship by the court?  This is very alarming.  Read this news excerpt.  More of my commentary below.

People Have no Right to Vote on Gay ‘Marriage’ Rules D.C. Appeals Court

By John Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a 5-4 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals held today that the residents of Washington D.C. do not have the right to vote on the issue of same-sex “marriage,” and that allowing a vote on the issue would amount to allowing “discrimination.”

The decision is the latest in a lengthy battle by Stand 4 Marriage DC, a coalition of the federal district’s religious leaders led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, to put the issue of gay “marriage” to a vote by the people.

In May of 2009 the 13 members of the D.C. City Council voted to recognize same-sex “marriages” that were performed in other U.S. states, after which Stand 4 Marriage appealed to allow a referendum on the issue.

However, their efforts have been blocked every step of the way, with local bureaucrats and judges repeatedly deciding that putting same-sex “marriage” to a popular vote would violate the human rights of homosexuals.

In June 2009, the capital district’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled “that the Referendum does not present a proper subject of referendum because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act.”

On December 15 of last year, the city council voted 11-2 to pass a bill that would legalize all same-sex “marriages” in D.C. in addition to those contracted in other states. The law went into effect on March 3.

In January the D.C. Superior Court agreed with the city’s ethics board, saying that, “The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board’s decision.” (Source)

A vote on the definition of marriage would be “discrimination”?  By whose standards?  The so-called “Human Rights Act”?  And exactly who defined the “Human Rights Act”, which the bureaucrats and courts hold as so sacred that you’d think the Governor received it written on tablets of stone from atop a mountain?  If it’s an Act, it must have been passed by the State legislature, right?  Doesn’t that mean a vote?  Er, yeah!  So why is a vote in favour of gay “marriage” considered okay, but a vote that could overturn such a provision becomes intolerable?

What kind of one-way democracy is this?  Is anybody paying attention?

With all of the heretical garbage being reported on by Socon or Bust lately, I thought I’d pop back in here and post the above clip to re-affirm us in the truth of our Faith.

But let us not take our eye of the ball, either.  There are many Catholics who like to keep their heads in the sand. That’s why exposing darkness remains one of Socon or Bust’s central purpose - to remove our heads from the sand.  Nevertheless, we must never lose hope in Jesus or the Church, even though many of her ministers, like Fr. Gravel and his bishop, are in total darkness.

Fr.Gravel has been whining recently that good people like LifeSiteNews are “misquoting” him.  So we’ll look directly at his own writings and see how his own pen proves his betrayal of the Faith he vowed to serve.  Today, we look at a crucial aspect of the Catholic faith with which Fr. Gravel is at odds: the Eucharist.

Fr. Gravel provides pastoral services to the policeman of Laval and the firemen of Montréal. On Sunday, June 6, 2010 (the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, also called Corpus Christi), Fr. Gravel gave a homily entitled “A bread to be shared and not adored!“  You can read the complete French version on the website of the diocese of Joliette here.  Below, I have translated the key excerpts of concern.  Note: if the text seems incoherent at times, its not my fault. I’m just translating what he wrote, as he wrote it.  It’s not my job to fix his sentence structures.

Some background on the Mass for June 6:  the second reading was 1 Corinthians 23-26, where St. Paul describes the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.  The Gospel reading was Luke 9:11-17, which is an account of the multiplication of the loaves and the fish.

The entire first paragraph of his homily is copied below:

1. The Eucharist : a celebration and not a  sacrifice : I have always asked myself, by what deviation we, in the Church, came to celebrate the Eucharist as a sacrifice, that of the Cross, that we would endlessly repeat at each of our Masses? Yes! Christ died! Be he rose from the dead! His death, therefore, is not an end in itself and cannot be repeated, because he only died once. Christ’s death only has meaning for us to the extent that it is followed by the Resurrection. And it’s this event of Easter: Death Resurrection, that we celebrate in the Eucharist. Saint Paul reminds us in the second reading today, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, when he writes: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11,26).

While there are some accurate statements in that paragraph, such as the interconnectedness of Christ’s Death and Resurrection and the fact that Christ only died once, there are some grave errors also.

From the beginning, the Church has always taught that the Mass is both a sacrifice and a celebration. The sacrificial aspect of the Mass is clearly explained in the Catechism #1330, which is situated in a section of the Catechism that enumerates the various names given to this wonderful sacrament:

The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,¹⁵⁰ since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

This reflects the continuous teaching of the Church Fathers and of Scripture itself, for even the words of Christ at the Last Supper convey the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist:

“This is my body which will be given up for you”

“This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for you and for all so that sins my be forgiven.”

To deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass is a fundamental error for a Catholic priest.  The Eucharist is supposed to be the centre of a priest’s life.  Not only does Fr. Gravel disagree with the teaching, but he calls it a “deviation” and seems to be revolted by it.

Moreover, he seems to think that the Church teaches that Christ dies again and again at each Mass.  This is obviously false.  Christ died once.  At Mass, this unique sacrifice is presented again to the Father to bring down graces of forgiveness and healing on the world.  The best analogy I’ve heard is this: at Mass, it’s as if we step into a time machine and are transported back to Calvary to witness the one sacrifice of the Cross and unite ourselves to it.  So is Christ dying over and over?  No.  It’s hard to believe that a priest of 25 years would publicly reject these teachings.

But he isn’t done ransacking Church teaching on the Eucharist on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi.  The next paragraph of his homily starts like this:

2. Eucharist: bread to be shared and not adored: The story of the multiplication of the bread that is related 6 times in the gospels: 2 in Matthew, 2 in Mark, 1 in Luke and 1 in John. The account that we have today, from Luke, presents, as the others, strong Eucharistic overtones. While we don’t have the description of how this miracle was performed, we must underscore the importance of this theological event, because it is related 6 times in the gospels.

The first sentence really bugs me:  “Eucharist: bread to be shared and not adored.” He repeats this thought later in the homily, as we’ll see below.  It’s also the title of his homily.  So there’s quite an emphasis.  Is he rejecting the practice of Eucharistic Adoration?

The next two paragraphs make some parallels between the multiplication of the loaves and the fish, as related in Luke 9, with the words of the Consecration.  It’s true that there are clear parallels.  In this account of the multiplication, we read that Jesus “looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples” (Luke 9:16)  These words are very similar to the Consecration: “he took break and gave you thanks and praise.  He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples.” But the Church has never taught that the multiplication of the loaves was a Mass or that the bread distributed to the crowds was the Eucharist.  Yet this is what Fr. Gravel says in the penultimate paragraph of his homily:

Finally, with this account from Luke, the Christian mission has already begun: the Apostles share in Jesus’ mission. Like him, they proclaimed the Kingdom of God and performed healings (Lk 9,1-2.6). Tired from their mission, they have an eagerness about them: “Send the crowd away, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside, to lodge and get provisions; for we are here in a deserted place.” (Lk 9,12b). One thing is certain: this Eucharistic bread is not made to be adored, but to be distributed and shared. And if there is so much left over, it is to feed all the others that aren’t present at the gathering.

So the multiplication of the loaves was the Eucharist?  And again the notion that the Eucharist is not meant to be adored?  Not exactly by the book Catholicism, eh?

Clearly, Fr. Gravel has major issues in his understanding of the Eucharist. He’s spreading his errors to unsuspecting lay people, compromising their salvation.  This must stop.

Keep in mind this horrible homily is posted on the web site of the diocese.  What does that suggest about Bishop Gilles Lussier’s views about Fr. Gravel and his teachings?  That’s a topic for another day.

Please pray for him and his bishop.  And keep those letters moving to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at cdf@cfaith.va.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput announced Tuesday that a deceased priest was vindicated of allegations of sexual abuse, said to have occurred decades ago, after a thorough diocesan investigation.

Monsignor William Higgins, a priest who served in the archdiocese for over five decades and who died in 1967, was accused of sexual abuse in 2009 by a woman identified as “Jane Doe.”

However, Chaput said that in the course of litigation and investigation into the allegations, the archdiocese determined that “the plaintiff’s complaint was not credible and the charges made against Msgr. Higgins were groundless.”

He added that “Jane Doe” then freely dismissed her claims against the priest.

“If Msgr. Higgins were alive today, he would be in good standing and able to minister in the archdiocese,” said Chaput. “False charges do inexcusable harm to a priest’s good name, his reputation earned over years of service to others, and to the lay Catholic faithful and other dedicated priests.”

I’ve long suspected that some accusations of abuse were bogus.  In this case, notice how the plaintiff freely dismissed the charges once it became clear they had caught her in a lie.  This is a disgrace.  What a horrible sin to defame an innocent man’s good name.  If it wasn’t for the fact that the accused priest is dead, a libel suit may have been in order.

What are the odds that you’ll read about this one in the New York Times?