What a Difference a Year Makes

The “California Catholic Daily” has posted an article that everyone should read. The article (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=2782389d-da2c-40ce-8d7f-071d2345291c) is written by Cardinal James Francis Stafford, who recalls the reaction to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in August 1968. The cardinal discusses the American clergy’s rejection of the encyclical and the persecution he himself suffered as a supporter of the papal document.

A few days after the encyclical was released, Cardinal Stafford was invited to join other Baltimore priests in a meeting at the St. William of York parish in southwest Baltimore to discuss the pope’s encyclical. “After welcoming us and introducing the leadership, the inner-city pastor came to the point. He expected each of us to subscribe to the Washington ‘Statement of Dissent.’” All of the priests in attendance, except then-Father Stafford , agreed to sign the letter. (One priest did change his mind later in the evening). The inner-city priest’s response to Stafford ’s refusal reads like an excerpt from a 1950s’ Teamsters Union meeting:

“The leader’s reaction to my refusal was predictable and awful. The whole process now became a grueling struggle, a terrible test, a Peirasmòs. The priest/leader, drawing upon some scatological language from his Marine Corp past in the II World War, responded contemptuously to my decision. He tried to force me to change. He became visibly angry and verbally abusive. The underlying ‘fraternal’ violence became more evident. He questioned and then derided my integrity. He taunted me to risk my ecclesiastical ‘future,’ although his reference was more anatomically specific. The abuse went on.”

Cardinal Stafford believes that the dissent directed at the Vatican today by the American clergy has its roots in the events surrounding the release of Humanae Vitae. He may be right.

Read the article.

Donald Tremblay

Knock and the Door Will Be . . . Locked

I am someone who didn’t finished college until I was an adult. Prior to getting my degree I worked an assortment of miserable jobs that I credit for giving me the motivation to go back to school. One of these depressing jobs, which I quit after three months, was Accounts Receivable Clerk for a jewelry manufacturer. The company was located near Madison Square Garden in NYC. I hated the job and dreaded getting up in the morning. Often my only saving grace was that at lunchtime I could walk to Saint Francis of Assisi Church and pray for the strength to get through the rest of the day. On those days I would eat quickly and hurry to the church to participate in what was left of the midday mass. When it ended I would just sit in the pew and reflect . . . and pray.

I was lucky. Had I worked somewhere other than Manhattan , chances are the churches in the area would have been closed. The days of arbitrarily walking into a church to light a candle or to just pray are a memory. Very few churches leave their doors open anymore. It’s unfortunate. Being able to visit St. Francis of Assisi Church when I needed spiritual inspiration was invaluable during those trying months. And I know I am not alone. Years later when I worked uptown, I would sometimes stop in St. Patrick’s Cathedral during the afternoon. After I passed the tourists milling around the doors, I would often see people intensely praying or even crying because of some hardship in their lives.

It’s a sad fact that in today’s world churches cannot leave their doors open for fear that relics may be stolen, or worse, that violent criminals will use the church as a means to attack people:

· The Houston Chronicle (http://www.nacssm.org/houston_churches_lock_door.htm) published an article on June 13, 2007, about how crime was forcing that city’s churches to lock their doors during non-mass hours: “Faced with thievery and violence, churches increasingly have adopted security measures that, in some cases, are so stringent that the Messiah might face obstacles gaining entry.”

· Just three weeks ago on July 6, 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times printed, “Church Offers Solace but Some Locked Doors”. In the article a parish secretary explained the need for the church closings: “’It's more or less for security's sake, because there's too many places for people to hide,’ said Alvina Donnelly, the longtime secretary at St. Andrew Church on North Paulina. ‘And especially with altar kids around and things like that, you never know what could happen.’" (http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1041448,CST-NWS-churches06.article)

Who is to blame for the locked doors? We are.

Don’t blame the bishops or the priests. We are the ones who have created a society where virtually nothing is sacred anymore. What a disgrace.

Donald Tremblay

Thou Hast Hid These Things from the Wise . . .

“I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.” (Matthew 11:25).

As a child these words confused me. Wouldn’t the wise and the learned find it easier to grasp Christ’s teachings? And because of this understanding wouldn’t they be likelier to embrace the Truth? As I aged I realized my assumptions were incorrect: often it is the smarter, more-educated individuals who have the most trouble accepting the teachings of Christ and his Church.

The July 13 issue of the National Catholic Register published a front-page story—“Leaders Weigh in on the Kmiec Controversy”—that indirectly addresses the above issue. (http://ncregister.com/site/article/15383)

Doug Kmiec “is a pro-life Catholic law professor at Pepperdine University who made his name in the Reagan administration, at Notre Dame University and at The Catholic University of America”. To the surprise of many, this past Easter Kmiec announced that he is supporting Barack Obama for president—the same Obama who told a group of abortion supporters last year that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”. As the Register points out, if enacted, the bill “would prevent any federal, state or local government entity from restricting access to abortion.” What is Kmiec thinking you ask?

On www.slate.com’s legal blog “Convictions”, Kmiec says, “’I am convinced, based upon his [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.’” Kmiec’s conviction is curious considering Obama’s “perfect pro-abortion voting record and his campaigning on an abortion-rights platform with the endorsement of NARAL and leaders of Planned Parenthood.” There doesn’t seem to be much open-mindedness there.

Kmiec adds that in his view Obama is not pro-abortion because “’those who are pro-abortion, as I see it, are those who advocate the practice as a matter of fundamental right or as part of a radical feminist agenda that takes no account of the moral weight or significance of unborn life.’” How’s that for rationalizing? I have one question for Kmiec:

If Obama doesn’t defend abortion-on-demand as a fundamental right for women, then why does Kmiec later state that “Obama believes the decision should be left to the pregnant mother”? I’m not an attorney, but leaving the decision to the pregnant mother sounds an awful lot like giving her the fundamental right to have an abortion.

Finally, this next quote wins the award for Most Convoluted Logic. Kmiec contends that John McCain is also pro-choice, despite his perfect pro-life voting record, because he believes that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that the abortion issue should be decided by the states. Furthermore, he suggests that “’from a standpoint of subsidiarity and prudence, one can make an argument that the Obama position is preferable since it does not arrogate to a higher level that which can be done more effectively below in direct relationship with the mother.’” Father John Neuhaus describes this argument as “disingenuous”. Deceitful is the word that comes to my mind.

But Kmiec is not alone. Many educated Catholics either dismiss the Church’s teachings outright or perform intellectual gymnastics to prove their views don’t violate Church doctrine and dogma. Why is this antagonism toward the Church so common among the learned?

Education is what you make of it. Knowledge is empowering; understanding builds confidence. Unfortunately, as humans we too easily cross the line from confidence to arrogance. As we gain knowledge we often assume that we are shielding ourselves from errors in judgment. We begin to treat our opinions as if they are declarations from the Oracle at Delphi. As with everything else in life there is no substitution for humility. It is important to remember that when our views conflict with the Church’s, we are disputing principles that have been cultivating for 2,000 years. Some of the most intelligent, most educated, and most holy men and women ever to walk this earth have crafted these teachings—all with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

I may not be as smart as Einstein or St. Thomas Aquinas, but I am intelligent enough to know that believing my wisdom surpasses 2,000 years of Catholic tradition is dumb.

Only a fool would believe that.



Donald Tremblay

Oh, the Irony

If there weren’t human lives being lost, and many of them at that, the irony would be comical. Liberal feminist groups like NOW made abortion-on-demand their defining issue. What they never anticipated was that this “right” would be used to murder tens of millions of girls. Lifesitenews.com posted an article yesterday announcing that sex-selective abortions are now happening on a “wide scale” in the United States because of the influx of Asian immigrants from countries like China and India where the practice is widespread. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072401.html) The United Nations says “this practice has already claimed the lives of over 100 million girls worldwide.”

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI) is incensed because American feminist groups are silent on the issue:

"Where are the feminists when you need them? . . . I challenge the National Organization of Women," says Mosher, "and other feminist groups, to join us in the battle to ban this terrible form of sex discrimination that is killing so many unborn baby girls. Their continued silence only facilitates the killing."

Mr. Mosher should not hold his breath while waiting for this condemnation. You see, feminist groups have backed themselves into a philosophical corner. To criticize an abortion for any reason violates their 1^st commandment: A woman has the right to do whatever she wishes with her body. Any restrictions on choice would compromise this tenet.

A corollary to this commandment is that everything, and everyone, must be sacrificed to the abortion-on-demand cause.

Back in the 1990s when President Clinton was accused of sexual harassing Paula Jones and of receiving oral sex from Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, Americans openly wondered why liberal feminist groups were silent. Barely a word was heard in support of these women. Why?

President Clinton was the most pro-choice chief executive in our nation’s history and neither NOW nor or any other liberal feminist group was going to sacrifice his abortion support for any woman, regardless of the circumstances.

Oh, the irony.

Donald Tremblay

ReplyReply All

Move...8glass 4kidsaccount infoapproved aff pgrmsDeleted ItemsInfo sent out by And...INTRO MERGE LETTERMISCMY DREAM NETWORK-CON...NY DREAM NETWORK- GU...PasswordsPROMO FOLDERSent Items

Religious Entertainment

Yesterday, Catholicexchange.com posted a column entitled, “Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper” (http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/07/22/113245/) The op-ed writer says she began to question clapping at Mass after reading then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, which says the following : “Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.” (Ratzinger, p198) Religious entertainment is something all churchgoers have had to suffer through. And because of its flawed objective the Novus Ordo mass is the main culprit behind the growing prevalence of this problem.

Following Vatican II the Church decided to “democratize” the liturgy (“Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass”, http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/marks.html).They wanted increased laity participation in the Mass, so they changed the liturgy’s objective from that of a sacrifice to one of a celebration. The Traditional (Tridentine) Mass was “a sacrifice linked to the sacrifice of the Cross”, while the New (Novus Ordo) Mass is “a meal linked to the Last Supper”. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comparison.htm) The congregation became the focus of the liturgy instead of God. Need examples:

· No longer does the priest face God as he consecrates the bread and wine. Now he must face the congregation as if he is performing for the crowd, sort of like a magician at Radio City Music Hall .

· Parish Councils – Lay members in consultation with the pastor decide on the direction of the Church. In the case of the liturgy “it means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, including women and even teenagers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or leader of song is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy.” (“Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass”)

And no discussion of religious entertainment would be complete without addressing the issue of Church music. Perhaps the best commentary on this disaster is my experience last week at a beach town parish. Prior to the opening of the liturgy, the pianist played a solo that must have been written by Charles Schultz since it can only be described as “Peanuts-like”. From there a set of drums, a violin, an organ, and a guitar were added. (Never did I fathom that a Responsorial Psalm could be turned into a Jazz-like tune with a drumbeat setting the rhythm). Rounding off the Twilight Zone-experience was the performances of the singers themselves. The main singer, a gentleman with a wonderful voice, felt the need to smile and gesture with his arms throughout as if he were giving an aria at Lincoln Center .

And people wonder why Mass attendance is down.

Donald Tremblay

Learn more about the Tridentine (Latin) Mass

The Mystical Body of Christ

Sunday’s gospel reading focused on the “Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat” (Matthew 13: 24-30). In the allegory a gardener sows good seed in his field, only to have someone defile it overnight by adding weeds to it. When the crop emerges the gardener’s slaves see the weeds and ask if they should tear them from the ground. The gardener answers, “No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until the harvest.”

Most commentaries on this parable suggest that Jesus was instructing his followers to be patient with the lost sheep of the flock. In fact, The New American Bible’s footnote (Memorial Bible Publishers, 1976) to the tale explains the “moral of the story” as such:

“The refusal of the householder to allow his slaves to separate the wheat from the weeds while they are still growing is a warning to his disciples to not to anticipate the final judgment of God by a definitive exclusion of sinners from the kingdom.” (New American Bible, p 1174)

The above analysis is logical and corresponds with Jesus’ other parables describing God’s infinite mercy and love. (For ex., from the “Parable of the Lost Sheep” we learn that even the loss of one soul deeply saddens God.) However, after contemplating the Weeds among the Wheat parable, I believe Christ’s message is more concerned with protecting the Mystical Body than with sinners and their exclusion from paradise.

Pope Pius XII discusses the doctrine of the Mystical Body in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

“We would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ’—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.” (Mystici, 13)

“That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. ‘Christ,’ says the Apostle, ‘is the Head of the Body of the Church.’ If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: ‘Though many we are one body in Christ.’” (Mystici, 14)

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

(Mystici, 22)

Catholic thought teaches that Judgment Day will come when the Mystical Body is complete, fully-matured:

“For this reason St. Paul says that Christ is being brought to fulfillment, and thus he achieves the fullness of life, that is, the mystical stature that he has in his mystical body, which will reach completion only on judgment day.”

(The Mystery of Christ in us and in the Church, St. John Eudes)

This eschatological principle is essential to understanding the gardener’s refusal to tear out the weeds. He does not reject the option in the hopes that the weeds will eventually become wheat or because they may serve a future unknown purpose. He rejects the choice because the slaves “might uproot the wheat along with them [weeds].” Tearing out the wheat would prevent it from ripening, maturing to full-growth. Without full-growth the harvest would be incomplete. Similarly, passing judgment on the wicked before the souls of the elect have matured would leave the Mystical Body incomplete, immature.

One final note: When explaining the parable to his disciples, Christ defines the weeds as “the children of the evil one”—hardly a sympathetic term asking for patience. (Matthew 13:38)

Donald Tremblay

Mass Conversion in Rome ’s Future?

Damian Thompson covers the Roman Catholic Church for the London newspaper the Daily Telegraph. His “Holy Smoke” columns often raise issues that you rarely read in American religious publications and virtually never read in our secular newspapers. An example of this can be found in his Wednesday, July 16 column “Benedict is Encouraging Anglican Converts” (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/16/benedict_is_encouraging_anglican_converts)

Thompson correctly points out that “progressive” American Catholics are horrified at the prospect of a mass conversion of orthodox Anglicans to the Roman Church. In response they are spreading the fallacy that Pope Benedict rejects any support of those in conflict with the Anglican churches latest moves supporting homosexual clergy and women bishops:

“Liberals claim that Pope Benedict has ‘let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman

Catholic Church’. He has done no such thing.

The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.”

Thompson also reminds readers that this is not the first time that Pope Benedict has supported conservative Anglicans. In 2003 then-Cardinal Ratzinger “sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas ,” an action that put him in conflict with the Vatican ’s ecumenism representatives.

Read Thompson’s column.

Donald Tremblay

Smaller, But More Devout

An interesting column can be found on www.spirit.daily.com entitled “DOES POPE AIM TO BRING CHURCH BACK BY MAKING IT SMALLER, PURER, MORE

DEVOUT?” (http://www.spiritdaily.com/smallchurch.htm) Perhaps Pope Benedict is reading the signs of the times. Secular humanism has enticed many in this world, reminding one of Christ’s words that His second coming would be preceded by the deception of many. This deception would naturally lead to a smaller, more zealous flock. Smaller because of the loss of those lead astray; more zealous because those who withstood the trial by fire emerged spiritually stronger. Could the Pope have this in mind?

Another reason the Pope may be working towards a smaller, purer Church is for ecclesiological reasons, as is mentioned by Dr. Joseph Maucier in The Millennial Papacy.

"We might take a moment here to ponder the thoughts of Pope Benedict on the character and activity of the Church in the coming decades of the third millennium. His analysis is not economical but ecclesiological. Nonetheless he looks at both possibilities. Pope Benedict has spoken of a smaller, more faithful Church as perhaps the model of the Church for these perilous times, not unlike the early Church in its intense solidarity.”

There’s a lot to be said for Maucier’s view. Arguably, the Church never flourished as much or saw a greater intensity of devoutness than in the early days of its inception. Despite the persecutions its sized continued to grow exponentially. One might even argue that it grew as quickly and as strongly as it did because of the persecutions. Many believe the Church is facing its greatest persecution since those early days. If so, that smaller, purer approach may be just what is needed.

After all it did work once.

Donald Tremblay

I Desire Mercy, Not Sacrifice

I went to a function over the weekend that started as a birthday party for a 12-year-old cousin, but quickly morphed into a family reunion since many of us were seeing each other for the first time in years. In fact, when I shook hands with my cousin Kenneth it was the first time we’d crossed paths in nearly three decades. We all reminisced and the conversation inevitably led to the matriarch of my mother’s family, my deceased grandmother who lived to the ripe age of 95.

The woman had lived a difficult life since arriving at Ellis Island as a little girl with her Polish family. She gave birth to 10 children, but only seven survived until adulthood. A set of twins died at birth and a 10-year-old daughter died after the poison from her abscessed tooth shot to her brain. She buried her husband and four sons, all of whom were alcoholics. When she said goodbye to the last of her sons she told those in earshot that she “was supposed to be the one in the casket, not her son.” And then she added the words that all parents feel when they lose a child: “It’s not normal to bury your kids.” Later in life when she was in her 60s, she raised one of my cousins, rescuing her from an unfit mother.

Later that night as I drove home from the party, I was reminded of a conversation I had with Monsignor Cassato from St. Athanasius Church in Brooklyn , NY . I was considering writing a column about how the Church was doing a poor job teaching the flock Catholic doctrine and dogmas. I asked the monsignor his thoughts and he said, “Donald, we try when we can. The truth is there is so much sadness and pain in the world that often we don’t have the time to do that. You wouldn’t believe the calls we get every day from people, beaten down by life.”

Beaten down by life.

I think of my grandmother now, and perhaps for the first time in my life I truly understand Christ’s scolding of his fellow Jews for not understanding the words, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” We all need to remember, and I may need this reminder more than anyone, that as we defend the Faith we must keep compassion foremost in our minds. It’s not easy sometimes. Some people’s personalities make it very difficult to do so. But it’s at these times that we need to remember Christ’s description of the last judgment to his disciples:

“Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. “ (Matthew 25: 34-40)

Donald Tremblay

This Is How it Begins

Yes, this is how it begins. Sure we have a first amendment, but activist judges will find a way around that inconvenience. It’ll start the way it did in places like Canada . Laws will be passed to prevent discrimination. Then those laws will be used to argue that “offensive” words are a form of discrimination and violate a person’s rights. Eventually the very teachings of Christianity will be considered hate speech and will result in lawsuits. Paranoia on my part? Hardly. (See: “Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada ” - Battleground Homosexuality - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06100601.html )

We now have the beginnings of this in the United States . The Church Report Online announced in their newsletter today that “a Michigan man has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that certain Bibles from Thomas Nelson Publishing and another Bible publisher discriminate against gays.” (http://www.thecronline.com/mag_article.php?mid=1369&mname=July)

Here is the scriptural passage under dispute:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God ? Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God ." (1 Corinthians, 6:9)

Bradley Fowler, the homosexual man who has filed the lawsuit, says “he believes the use of the word homosexual in the Bibles is a misinterpretation and that the verse isn't translated correctly.”

It seems unlikely that the case will be heard . . . but it doesn’t matter. This is the beginning of the slippery slope. More lawsuits will follow in the coming months and years, each one more focused on the minutiae of the law, intent on finding a loophole that will allow an activist judge to strike a blow against the homophobic Catholic Church.

Be watchful. Be aware.

Donald Tremblay

Comic Relief

Even those who daily “fight the good fight” need a good laugh. So here’s one for today.

According to yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, a very angry group of people resent Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation to Australia for the World Youth Day celebrations. The Gay Raelian society “staged a demonstration outside Parliament House to protest the Pope's arrival for World Youth Day next week.” (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23994345-5006009,00.html)

What are Raelians? Well, Raelians believe that the world was created by an alien civilization 25,000 years ago. “Raelian spokeswoman Eden Bates said it was an insult that the Pope would be welcomed into Australia when ‘our gorgeous, fantastic spiritual leader Rael wasn't even given the respect of a visa’.”

Indeed. That is quite a slap in the face to our extra-terrestrial creators.

Perhaps NASCAR officials could help with the visa issue since Rael is “a Frenchman and former motor sport journalist and race-car driver whose parents, the Vorilhons, called him Claude.”

The group’s website (http://www.raeliangay.org/en/index.html) offers the following welcome to visitors:

ARAMIS is the Raelian Association of the Sexual Minorities that gathers men and women who are homosexual, bisexual, transsexuals or transgender on all five continents and was founded by RAEL, the spiritual leader of an atheist religious movement: The International Raelian Movement.

The members of ARAMIS are thus members of the philosophy of the one who was the first spiritual leader to have said that the sexual orientation is genetic and not a choice of life. . . . ARAMIS also denounces the major traditional religions that spread false beliefs that create prejudices, taboos and violence toward the GBLTT, particularly the homosexuals. In the same token, ARAMIS invites them to apostatize from their religion if the latter has homophobic writings, discourse or attitude.

You would think an alien civilization that went through the trouble of creating a world would insist that its followers focus on more important issues plaguing its creation, such as war, famine, and disease. But apparently not.

Incidentally, what is an atheist religious movement? Is that like an all-you-can-eat buffet at a weight-loss camp?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Donald Tremblay

Just When You Think You’ve Heard it All

No, I haven’t heard it all.

Every time I think I have, something else comes along to straighten me out.

In 2007, The Children’s Hospital Boston added the Gender Management Service Clinic. What is Gender Management? Good question. Well, according to an article in this month’s issue of National Catholic Register entitled “Boys will be Girls?” the clinic “allows young children to select their own gender and treats them with hormones.” (National Catholic Register: July 6-12, p 12)

Oh. And that’s not all.

“So-called ‘transgendered’ children are increasingly likely to be channeled into programs that treat them with hormones and on the road to full ‘sexual reassignment’—including amputating surgeries to give them pseudo-genitalia of the opposite sex.” (Ibid)

“Pre-adolescents are given hormone injections to delay puberty, and children as young as seven are encouraged to decide whether they want to be male or female.” (Ibid)

Disgraceful, and dangerous, as former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Paul McHugh wrote in a 2004 article for First Things magazine:

“I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with the guilt over their decisions–second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons.”

Catholic Online posted a column about Boston ’s Gender Management clinic on May 8, 2008. (http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=27890&section=Cathcom) In the article moral theologian Father Anthony Mastroeni of Paterson NJ , who has taught at Franciscan University of Steubenville and Christendom College , blasts the idea that sex-change surgery might be morally justified:

“It does nothing but increase human misery. There’s no scientific evidence that anyone is born with gender dysphoria.”

This clinic is nothing more than a homosexual and transgender recruiting center. It is political correctness masquerading as science. But don’t expect the mass media to cover this outrage since they have been the biggest flag-waivers for the same-sex movement. It is only by reading a Catholic newspaper that I first learned of it.

Is there any doubt that the homosexual and transgender movements will stop at nothing to force their intrinsically disordered lifestyles onto the heterosexual community?

Donald Tremblay

Anything to Discredit Faith in the Lord Jesus

I’m amazed at the lengths people will go to discredit Christianity. The International Herald Tribune reported yesterday about a “three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus.” (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php) The stone is of interest to many because “it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days”. According to the daily this is important because it “suggests that the story of his [Jesus] death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.” Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem bluntly states, “"This should shake our basic view of Christianity . . . Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

And . . . . .?

Why this should shake our view of Christianity is beyond me. Perhaps Mr. Knohl should re-read Matthew 5:17:

“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

Fulfill. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines fulfill as “to carry out, as a promise”. In other words Christ was carrying out the promise of a resurrected messiah.

The Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13168) answered the Tribune’s article by posting its own, arguing that “while one scholar claims the find could ‘shake our basic view of Christianity,’ a Catholic Professor of Scripture suggests the tablet is actually evidence for the historical probability of Christian belief.” (Why the Tribune didn’t see fit to interview a Christian scholar about Knohl’s claims is a story in itself)

Dr. Timothy Gray, a professor of Biblical Studies at the Augustine Institute in Denver , points out that Jesus made many references to the Book of Daniel and “that the Jewish expectation of a dying messiah is shown in Daniel’s prophecies, noting that Daniel chapter 9 talks about how an anointed messiah will be cut off and killed.” Gray also exposes the hypocrisy of many who seek to discredit Christianity:

“On the one hand, scholars argue no Jewish tradition about a messiah suffering shows that the Church added this idea. And once you show a document, an ancient document to point to, showing that they did interpret a prophet like Daniel to expect a suffering messiah, well then people say ‘Well this proves Christianity can’t be true.’”

“You can’t have it both ways,” Gray said.

“The point is that our people in modern media and modern scholars will use any evidence as disproof of Christianity, even if it illustrates the evidence of Christian belief. And this evidence clearly points to the historical probability of Christianity, to the historical Jesus.

Well said, Dr. Gray.

Donald Tremblay

An End in Themselves

In today’s Wall Street Journal Adam Keiper reviews Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121547414111533875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) Keiper says that author Michael S. Gazzaniga purports to argue that “modern neuroscience is on the brink of offering us real answers to these questions – answers more reliable and truthful than those that centuries of philosophy, religious tradition and literature have offered.” Yet, what is most interesting about the review is the concern Keiper raises at the conclusion of his column:

“More important, Mr. Gazzaniga does little to explore the implications of the research he describes. Once we have been armed with the latest scientific findings about how our brains came to be and how they function, how ought we to act?”

We find ourselves in that position today as a society. Embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, genetic engineering: all force us to consider the morality of “doing things just because we can”. We seem to have forgotten Immanuel Kant’s instruction to treat people as an end in themselves, and not as a means to an end. Using discarded embryos for research and cloning humans for the purpose of harvesting organs violate that piece of wisdom. And as we continue to make advancements in science there will be more opportunities for us to support whatever is viewed as “what’s best for society”. For ex, some insist that cures for terrible diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s will be found if we only support embryonic research. Catholics must stand firm, no matter the temptation, and reject this utilitarian approach to life. Our responsibility is to defend those who cannot defend themselves:

“Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.” (Catechism 2294)

Oh, and one side note: Any medical advancements resulting from stem cell research were made from ADULT stem cells. There has not been a single case of embryonic stem cells resulting in any scientific breakthrough. The truth is that the science behind it is specious. The next time someone argues that more money should be spent on this research, ask them why more private donations are not being made to support it. If this science is the cure-all that some claim it is, then it would be a gold mine for investors. Yet, investors are staying away. That should tell you something.

Donald Tremblay

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways

We’ve all heard this adage since we were kids. Most of us have probably experienced it in our own lives on more than one occasion. We may be experiencing it now on a global scale.

Before his crucifixion Christ said to the Father, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are.” (John 17: 11) We don’t know whether Christians will be one prior to Judgment Day. Yet, based on the most recent current events, perhaps we Publish Postare witnessing the early stages of that unification.

Yesterday the Daily Telegraph, a London daily newspaper, announced that “Senior Church of England bishops have held secret talks with Vatican officials to discuss the crisis in the Anglican communion over gays and women bishops.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2254269/Anglican-bishops-in-secret-Vatican-summit.html) The article goes on state that “up to 600 clergy gave warning in a letter to Dr Williams [Archbishop of Canterbury] that they may leave the Church unless they receive a legal right to havens within the Church free of women bishops.”

One bishop is quoted anonymously stating, “"The internal pressure of the Anglican communion has pushed us apart and we’re committed to greater unity with Rome . There can be no future for Christianity in Europe without Rome ."

With each day western society becomes more of a frothing cauldron of secularism. In order to withstand this onslaught Christians will need to unite. An Anglican branch of the Roman Catholic Church?

Well, the Lord does work in mysterious ways.

Donald Tremblay

We Are Not Expected To Be Perfect, But To Be Made Perfect

The spiritually zealous often labor to live sinless lives. They want to live for Christ alone and to completely reject their own wills in favor of Our Heavenly Father’s Will. It is commendable, but unrealistic. In fact, more than being unrealistic, it is a complete misunderstanding of what God expects from us.

Throughout history God has chosen the most unusual people, unusual by the world’s standards, to fulfill His wishes.

David became King of Israel and one of the most revered figures of the Bible. Yet, this is the same man who became criminally drunk with power. He slept with and impregnated a married woman (Bathsabee); then, after finding out about her pregnancy, he compounded his sin by sending her husband, Uriah, to “the front of the battle, where the fight is strongest: and leave ye him, that he may be wounded and die.” (2 Kings 11:15) All this so that he could have Bathsabee to himself.

St. Peter, “the Rock upon which I will build My Church”, three times denied knowing Christ when accused by others of being a disciple.

St. Paul, perhaps the best example of a strange choice by God, was originally Saul of Tarsus. Before his conversion Saul persecuted and killed Christians.


These men certainly appear to be a motley crew intimately familiar with sin—which is exactly what God expected and wanted.

Humility is a Catholic’s best friend. God wants people who are open to His mercy and to obeying His will. Sometimes it is those who sin most who recognize their weaknesses and are thus more open to God’s care.

In her book The Way of Divine Love, Sister Josefa Menendez makes it clear that during her near-daily visits from the Lord that it is her nothingness that appealed to Him. She quotes Him as follows:

“That soul may and will fall often again, but if she humbles herself, if she recognizes her nothingness, if she tries to repair her faults by little acts of generosity and love, if she confides and surrenders herself once more to my Heart . . . she gives Me more glory and can do more good to other souls, than if she had never fallen.” (p 199)

The same is said by the Lord to Sister Mary of the Holy Trinity:

“I love you because you are so, so wretched . . . I love you because you cannot do without me.” (The Spiritual Legacy of Sister Mary of the Holy Trinity, p 87)

It is when we recognize our weaknesses and our need for the Lord’s guidance that He is most with us. During these times our humility opens the door of our soul wide to allow Him entry. When confronted by their sins, the three biblical greats mentioned above displayed great humility:

The Lord sends the prophet Nathan to David to tell him a parable about a rich man, a poor man, and a ewe. The rich man must provide a feast for a visiting guest. Rather than kill one of the many sheep or goats he owns, he takes the only sheep owned by a poor man. The poor man is saddened since this ewe was raised as a member of the family. Outraged, David promises to punish the rich man, only to learn from Nathan that he is that rich man. David doesn’t offer excuses or attack Nathan. Instead he confesses, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2Kings 12:12)

Following his third denial of Jesus, Peter hears the cock crow and remembers Jesus’ prediction of betrayal. Devastated, the apostle “wept bitterly“. (Matthew 26:75) Does the Lord abandon him? Hardly. He becomes the first Pope, the first Bishop of Rome. Moreover, in his later years Peter is given the strength by the Holy Spirit to erase his betrayal. Facing crucifixion Peter refuses to deny the Lord and instead embraces the same death as Christ. (Peter reportedly chooses to be crucified upside-down, believing he is not worthy to die in the same manner as the Lord)

Saul goes blind after seeing a vision of the Lord. His sight returns after being touched by Ananias. Saul is humbled and embraces Christ as his Lord. He changes his name to Paul and spreads Christ’s gospel further than any human in history—all while enduring physical attacks, imprisonments, and threats of death.

It is the Lord who makes us perfect through our willingness to be transformed. We can no more make ourselves perfect than a leopard can remove its spots. Let God be God and He will take care of the rest.



Donald Tremblay

A Get Out of Jail Free Card...Not

The Pew Forum released a report today reminding Catholics, albeit unintentionally, of the damage caused by the misguided notion of "primacy of conscience."

"A newly released study from the Pew Forum shows that many self-described American Catholics ignore Church teachings on both theological and social issues." (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=89626) According to the report, "the Pew Forum found that 48% of Catholics respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases), while only 18% agree that abortion should always be illegal. A substantial majority of the Catholics polled-- 58%-- said that society should accept homosexuality. On theological issues, only 16% of American Catholics believe that the Church is the one true means of salvation."

This shouldn't surprise anyone given the morally relativistic culture we live in. Your truth is your truth, and my truth is mine, and we agree not to pass judgment on one another. What better fertile ground for the concept of primacy of conscience to blossom?

Australian Archbishop George Pell best defined primacy of conscience as "secular relativism with a religious face." Dissenting Catholics embrace primacy of conscience as their "get out of jail free card", because it allows them to justify their refusal to accept Church teachings: "After all, I'm just following the conscience that God gave me. I'm making the choice I feel is right. How can I be held responsible for a bad choice if I only followed my heart, my conscience?"


Well, guess what? You will be held responsible.


The problem with primacy of conscience is that it assumes the conscience in question is mature and well-formed. In many cases this is not true. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following in regards to the formation of our consciences:


“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church” (Catechism, 1785).


Refusing to be 'guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church' is to willfully reject the proper formation of our consciences. Our consciences stagnate, leaving us in a state of ignorance for which we are responsible:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man 'takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.' In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits." (Catechism 1790, 1791)

Pray. Pray for those who willfully scorn the Church's teachings and for those who mistakenly believe that our consciences alone can distinguish between right and wrong. Otherwise, there will be many smiling souls who will be surprised to learn that the path they are treading leads not to the Beatific Vision, but to the place where Dante warns, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." (Inferno, Canto Three)


Donald Tremblay

Adam and Eve . . . Or is it Cornelius and Zira?

“Take your stinking paws off me you damn, dirty ape!”

This famous line from the film classic The Planet of the Apes has taken on new meaning thanks to a decision last week by the Spanish Parliament: “Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625) According to Reuters, “Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain 's penal code.”

I kid you not.

If it wasn’t so frightening it would be laughable.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project. Evolutionary comrades? Although it would be tempting to dismiss these ridiculous comments as proof of an unknown gas leak in the Spanish parliamentary building, Pozas statements are in actuality indicative of the chaotic views of our increasingly secular, anti-Christian western society.

Scripture tells us that God made Man in His own image. Secularism rejects God and tells us that Man is merely a rational animal, with the emphasis placed on the word animal. Few realize that once God is rejected, Man’s self-view as a transcendent creature with the authority “to fill the earth, and subdue it” is discarded as well (Genesis 1:28). Ultimately, Man is of no greater value than an ape, or any other creature, despite Christ’s words to his apostles as he sent them off on their first mission:

“29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.” (Matthew 10: 29-31)

Proof of this equating animal life with human life can be found among the extreme sect of the animal rights movement. Here are a few examples from news items published during the past few years:

· During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. (ADL - http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Ecoterrorism.asp)

· On July 30 the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled its latest plan to combat extremists operating on British soil. Irish Republican Army militants? Islamist radicals? No: animal-rights activists. (Aug 30, 2004, Business Week-European Business: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_35/b3897069_mz054.htm)

• Officials in Indian-Kashmir have poisoned hundreds of dogs and aim to kill all 100,000 strays in the region's main city - saying the animals pose a risk to humans and make urban life unbearable. With the world's highest rabies fatality rate, India has long struggled to control its millions of stray dogs, a problem exacerbated by rapidly growing cities and slums. Animal rights activists vowed Thursday to go to court to stop the slaughter planned by Srinagar , saying it is an illegal and cruel solution to a problem that could be addressed in other ways. (Associated Press - Friday, March 7, 2008: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNT2VEUPC.DTL)

Spain may be the first nation to devalue human life by officially proposing measures that subordinate Man to the level of the animal kingdom, but don’t expect it to be the last. In fact, don’t be surprised if the United Nations jumps on board and adds a “Wildlife Civil Rights” clause to its charter.

Donald Tremblay