URGENT: Contact MA Senators to Stop Planned Parenthood Sex-Ed Bill

November 18, 2015

This just in from Mass Resistance

Radical Planned Parenthood sex-ed school bill — being voted in Mass. Senate today, Wednesday Nov. 18!

You can still take action NOW (see below)

Call the Senate President’s office: 617-722-1500
Email: Stan.Rosenberg@masenate.gov

Say that we don’t want Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda in our schools at all. At a minimum, it should be “opt-in” for parents. DO NOT pass S2048.

Planned Parenthood’s radical “comprehensive sex ed” bill, S2048, which has outraged parents across the state, will be before the full Massachusetts Senate, Wednesday, Nov. 18. There is a separate House version that has not been voted on yet.

Planned Parenthood has been mobilizing their activists to lobby the legislature as hard as possible to pass their bill.

Wednesday is the last day of “full formal” sessions of the Massachusetts Legislature until January, when it continues its 2-year session. Bills not passed this week – including the House version of this bill — will still be active until December 31, 2016.

Push for radical “comprehensive sex education”

Making their version of “comprehensive sexuality education” mandatory in all Massachusetts schools has been a major goal of Planned Parenthood in every legislative session since at least 2006. In every session (so far), MassResistance and others have been able to successfully lobby to get the bill stopped in committee. But this year they are pushing extraordinarily hard.

Planned Parenthood even started a separate website, Sex-EdMatters.org, to promote this horrible bill among youth!

A major part of that objective has been to mandate the use of the Department of Education’s odious “Comprehensive Health Curriculum Frameworks” document, written in 1999, which outlines objectives for teaching in grades K-12 about sexuality, broad homosexual issues, “family life”, mental health, birth control, abortion, and other controversial topics. Currently, the document is optional.

What this bill does

Planned Parenthood’s goal was clearly stated during their testimony at the June 3, 2015 public hearing. They want to require that any school in Massachusetts that offers sex education at all, would have no choice but to do the full Planned Parenthood approach. The school would not legally have the option of offering a lesser version of sex-ed that the parents might be more comfortable with.

The Senate bill, S2048, “An Act Relative to Healthy Youth” does some very disturbing things:

  1. It replaces the current Parents Notification Law (originally written by MassResistance/Parents Rights Coalition).  The required notification to parents would be narrowed from from the general “human sexuality issues” to the specific “comprehensive health education provided by the school.”
  2. It continues to be “opt-out” – which has caused enormous problems for parents, instead of the widely-preferred “opt-in”.
  3. It mandates that homosexual sex “education” be taught to students.
  4. It mandates that contraception be taught.
  5. It makes the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks document the de facto standard for schools to use.
  6. It introduces the often confusing terms “medically accurate” and “age appropriate” which school officials have been able to use and manipulate with great latitude to serve their agenda, by cherry-picking their “experts”.

Amendments to bill being offered by Republican Senator

Sen. Bruce Tarr, (R-Gloucester) has offered several pro-family-oriented amendments to S2048. These will be taken up on Wednesday when the Senate debates the bill.

The amendments include:

  • Make all the material “opt-in” rather than “opt-out” – which is how just about everything else is done in schools, and what most families want. This is by far the most effective amendment.
  • If the “opt-out” is left in, a different amendment would require 30 days’ notice before putting kids in any of the classes.
  • A requirement that any outside contractor teaching comprehensive sexuality be certified by the state every year.
  • Include instruction on “the consequences of pregnancy and responsibilities of parenthood”.

Unfortunately, Republican amendments to Democrat-sponsored bills do not have a history of success in the State House. But we applaud Sen. Tarr for his efforts and hope for the best.

What you must do RIGHT NOW:

This bill needs to be stopped. Planned Parenthood knows exactly what it wants to do with your children. If they get this passed, they will move their sexual, homosexual, and pro-abortion agenda as deep as possible into the schools.

Bill 2048 will be taken up by the State Senate on 11:00 am on Wednesday morning. If possible, make calls before then.

Tell them: We don’t want Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda in our schools at all. At a minimum, it should be “opt-in” for parents. DO NOT pass S2048.

1. Call the Senate President’s office: 617-722-1500
Email: Stan.Rosenberg@masenate.gov

2. If you live in Massachusetts find your Senator HERE and call now!

URGENT: Contact MA Legislators to Oppose “Bathroom Bill”

November 17, 2015

This is urgent.  Renew MA Coalition is calling on all MA residents to contact your legislators today to oppose the “Bathroom Bill” that would make it legal for so-called “transgender” people to use an opposite sex public bathroom.  Here is their notice. Call the number below today and say that men dressed as women should not be able to enter a ladies room. And the privacy and safety of our families, particularly our children, must be respected and protected.  Call 617-722-2000 and ask for your rep. A call script is below.

(And as we would expect, nothing has been said about this by Cardinal O’Malley, the MA Bishops or the do-nothing Mass Catholic Conference)

  Call to Action

Bathroom Bill Vote TOMORROW

Dear fellow conservatives,

Our friends in the legislature tell us that the Bathroom Bill, currently HB 1577, will very likely be voted on TOMORROW.  Beacon Hill shuts down for the rest of the year after Wednesday, so there is an all-out push by LGBTQ activists to get the Bathroom Bill passed. 

This is our LAST CHANCE to push back and demand that legislators respect the privacy and safety of our families, particularly our children

PLEASE, CALL your state representative TODAY! If you know your state representative’s name, call the main switchboard at 617-722-2000. If you do not, click on the link below.

Call Your Representative Today 

   Thank you,


Hello Representative,

As your constituent, I would like to urge you to vote ‘NO’ on House Bill 1577, the Bathroom Bill. HB1577 is a threat to the privacy and safety of women and children.

The bill’s proponents claim it is about equal rights, but Massachusetts already passed a law giving special rights to transgendered people in 2011.  This bill is really about allowing any man or boy to enter a public restroom or locker room for females just by declaring female as their ‘gender expression.’

It is common sense that this is a bad idea and could be exploited by sexual predators or voyeurs.  You should be working to protect the privacy rights of MY family by voting against this bill.

Please vote ‘NO’ on the Bathroom Bill, HB1577. Thank you.”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider reaction to Synod: Door to communion for divorced & remarried officially kicked open

November 15, 2015

BCI has wanted to call attention of our readers to this outstanding piece by Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the mess created by the recent two Synod on the Family sessions.  It appeared on Rorate Caeli on November 2 and they are permitting others to reprint it.  It’s too good to edit down, so grab a nice cup of hot tea or your favorite beverage before you read it.

A back door to a Neo-Mosaic practice in the Final Report of the Synod

The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25, 2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”, issued a Final Report with some pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial value.

Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. At the same time those bishops who intrepidly defended “the Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as Pharisees.

The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2015) masked their practical denial of the indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,” “dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final Report, nn. 84-86).

This text section in the Final Report contains indeed a trace of a Neo-Mosaic practice of divorce, even though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promotors of the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time bombs in the abovementioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria.

Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. In fact, according to the reiterated affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.

The assurance of the text in the numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage, and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.

In quoting the famous number 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censored the text, cutting out the following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.

This practice of the Church is based on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times. Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of the teaching of Familaris Consortio in n. 85 of the Final Report, represents for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretive key for the understanding of the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers 84-86).

In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are infected with the plague of divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that Christian marriage as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes, 49).

The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of  marriage by adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not only in civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation.

The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be to draw attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentant will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.”

Such an admonition and exhortation is the very work of the Holy Spirit as Christ taught: “He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16: 8). Explaining the work of the Holy Spirit in “convincing sin,” Pope John Paul II said: “Every sin wherever and whenever committed has a reference to the Cross of Christ-and therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who ‘have not believed in him,’ and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross” (Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, 29). Those who conduct a married life with a partner who is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an eminently pastoral and merciful work.

The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried.

De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of the Holy Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2: 14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).

The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately to the area of the individual conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in adultery is improper and deceptive.

The diminution of the subjective responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can be no suspension of imputability. The Final Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70).

The Shepherds of the Church should not in the slightest manner promote a culture of divorce amongst the faithful. Even the smallest hint of yielding to the practice or to the culture of divorce should be avoided. The Church as a whole should give a convincing and strong witness to the indissolubility of the marriage. Pope John Paul II said that divorce “is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

The Church has to help the divorced and remarried with love and patience to recognize their own sinfulness and to help them to convert with one’s whole heart to God and to the obedience to His holy will, which is expressed in the Sixth Commandment. As long as they continue giving a public anti-witness to the indissolubility of marriage and contributing to a culture of divorce, the divorced and remarried cannot exercise those liturgical, catechetical and institutional ministries in the Church, which demand by their own nature a public life in accordance with the Commandments of God.

It is obvious that public violators for instance of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, such as owners of an abortion clinic or collaborators of a corruption network, not only cannot receive Holy Communion but, evidently, cannot be admitted to public liturgical and catechetical services. In an analogous manner, public violators of the Sixth Commandment, such as divorced and remarried, cannot be admitted to the office of lectors, godparents or catechists. Of course, one must distinguish the gravity of the evil caused by the life style of public promotors of abortion and corruption from the adulterous life of divorced people. One cannot put them on the same footing. The advocacy for the admission of divorced and remarried to the task of godparents and catechists aims ultimately not the true spiritual good of the children, but turns out to be an istrumentalization of a specific ideological agenda. This is a dishonesty and a mockery of the institution of godparents or catechists who by means of a public promise took on the task of educators of the faith.

In the case of godparents or catechists who are divorced and remarried, their life continuously contradicts their words, and so they have to face the admonition of the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Apostle Saint James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1: 22).   Unfortunately, the Final Report in n. 84 pleads for an admittance of the divorced and remarried to liturgical, pastoral and educational offices. Such a proposal represents an indirect support to the culture of divorce and a practical denial of an objectively sinful lifestyle. Pope John Paul II on the contrary indicated only the following possibilities of participating in the life of the Church, which for their part aim a true conversion: “They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

There should remain a salutary area of exclusion (non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices) in order to remind the divorced their real serious and dangerous spiritual state and, at the same time, to promote in their souls the attitude of humility, obedience and of longing for the authentic conversion. Humility means courage for truth, and only to those who humbly subject themselves to God, will receive His graces.

The faithful, who have not yet the readiness and the will to stop with the adulterous life, should be spiritually helped. Their spiritual state is similar to a kind of “catechumenate” regarding the sacrament of Penance. They can receive the sacrament of Penance, which was called in the Tradition of the Church “the second baptism” or “the second penance,” only if they sincerely break with the habit of the adulterous cohabitation and avoid public scandal in an analogous manner as do the catechumens, the candidates to the Baptism. The Final Report omits to call the divorced and remarried to the humble recognition of their objective sinful state, because it omits to encourage them to accept with the spirit of faith the non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices. Without such a realistic and humble recognition of their own real spiritual state, there is no effective progress towards the authentic Christian conversion, which in the case of the divorced and remarried consists in a life of complete continence, ceasing to sin against the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage and to disobey publicly the Sixth Commandment of God.

The Shepherds of the Church and especially the public texts of the Magisterium have to speak in an utmost clear manner, since this is the essential characteristic of the task of the official teaching. Christ demanded from all His disciples to speak in an extremely clear manner: “Let what you say be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Math 5: 37). This is valid all the more when the Shepherds of the Church preach or when the Magisterium speaks in a document.

In the text section of the numbers 84-86 the Final Report represents, unfortunately, a serious departure from this Divine command. Indeed in the mentioned passages the text does not plead directly in favor for the legitimacy of the admittance of the divorce and remarried to Holy Communion, the text even avoids the expression “Holy Communion” or “Sacraments.” Instead, the text by means of obfuscating tactics, uses ambiguous expressions like “a more full participation in the life of the Church” and “discernment and integration.”

By such obfuscating tactics the Final Report in fact put time bombs and a back door for the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, causing by this a profanation of the two great sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist, and contributing at least indirectly to the culture of divorce – to the spreading of the “plague of divorce” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 47).

When reading carefully the ambiguous text of the text section “Discernment and integration” in the Final Report, one has the impression of a highly skillful, elaborated ambiguity. One is reminded of the following words of Saint Irenaeus in his “Adversus haereses”: “He who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king.  But since what may prove a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms a proof from the outset that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.” (I, 9, 4-5).

The Final Report seems to leave the solution of the question of the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion to local Church authorities: “accompaniment of the priests” and “orientations of the bishop.” Such a matter is however connected essentially with the deposit of faith i.e. with the revealed word of God. The non-admittance of divorced who are living in a public state of adultery belongs to the unchangeable truth of the law of the Catholic faith and consequently also of the law of Catholic liturgical practice.

The Final Report seems to inaugurate a doctrinal and disciplinary cacophony in the Catholic Church, which contradicts the very essence of being Catholic. One has to be reminded of the words of Saint Irenaeus, about the authentic shape of the Catholic Church in all times and in all places: “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes the points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world (Italy). But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2).

The Final Report in the section on the divorced and remarried carefully avoids confessing the unchangeable principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public scandal. John Paul II and Benedict XVI confirmed strongly this Catholic principle. The deliberate avoidance of mentioning and reaffirming this principle in the text of the Final Report can be compared with the systematic avoidance of the expression “homoousios” on behalf of the opponents of the dogma of the Council of Nicea in the fourth century – the formal Arians and the so-called Semi-Arians – , who invented continuously other expressions in order not to confess directly the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God the Father.

Such a declination from an open Catholic confession on behalf of the majority of the episcopate in the fourth century caused a feverish ecclesiastical activity with continuous synodal meetings and a proliferation of new doctrinal formula with the common denominator of avoiding terminological clarity i.e. the expression “homoousios.” Likewise, in our days the two last Synods on Family avoided naming and confessing clearly the principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public scandal.

This fact is proven also by the immediate unequivocal reaction of the secular media and by the reaction of the main advocators of the new un-Catholic practice to admit divorced and remarried to Holy Communion while maintaining a life of public adultery. Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols and Archbishop Forte, for instance, publicly affirmed that, according to the Final Report, one can assume that a door in some way has been opened to Communion for the divorced and remarried. There exists as well a considerable number of bishops, priests and laity who rejoice because of the so-called “opened door” they found in the Final Report. Instead of guiding the faithful with a clear and an utmost unambiguous teaching, the Final Report caused a situation of obscuration, confusion, subjectivity (the judgement of the conscience of the divorced and forum internum) and an un-Catholic doctrinal and disciplinary particularism in a matter which is essentially connected to the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Those who in our days strongly defend the sanctity of the sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist are labeled as Pharisees. Yet, since the logical principle of non-contradiction is valid and common sense still functions, the contrary is true.

The obfuscators of the Divine truth in the Final Report are more like Pharisees. For in order to reconcile a life in adultery with the reception of Holy Communion, they skillfully invented new letters, a new law of “discernment and integration,” introducing new human traditions against the crystalline commandment of God. To the advocators of the so-called “Kasper agenda” are addressed these words of the Incarnated Truth: “You made void the word of God by introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13). Those who during 2,000 years spoke relentlessly and with an utmost clarity about the immutability of the Divine truth, often at the cost of their own life, would be labelled in our days as Pharisees as well; so Saint John the Baptist, Saint Paul, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Pius X, just to mention the most glowing examples.

The real result of the Synod in the perception of the faithful and of secular public opinion was that there has been practically only one focus on the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. One can affirm that the Synod in a certain sense turned out to be in the eyes of public opinion a Synod of adultery, not the Synod of family. Indeed, all the beautiful affirmations of the Final Report on marriage and family are eclipsed by the ambiguous affirmations in the text section on the divorced and remarried, a topic which was already confirmed and decided by the Magisterium of the last Roman Pontiffs in faithful conformity with the bi-millennial teaching and practice of the Church. It is therefore a real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the marriage, i.e. the non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the Sacraments.

In his letter to Pope Damasus, Saint Basil drew a realistic picture of the doctrinal confusion caused by those churchmen who sought an empty compromise, and an adaptation to the spirit of the world in his time: “Traditions are set at nought; the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; now men are rather contrivers of cunning systems than theologians; the wisdom of this world wins the highest prizes and has rejected the glory of the cross. The elders lament when they compare the present with the past. The younger are yet more to be compassionated, for they do not know of what they have been deprived” (Ep. 90, 2).

In a letter to Pope Damasus and to the Occidental Bishops, Saint Basil describes as follows the confused situation inside the Church: “The laws of the Church are in confusion.  The ambition of men, who have no fear of God, rushes into high posts, and exalted office is now publicly known as the prize of impiety.  The result is, that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter the people think him to be a bishop.  Clerical dignity is a thing of the past. There is no precise knowledge of canons.  There is complete immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favour of men, they are obliged to return the favour by continually showing indulgence to offenders. Just judgment is a thing of the past; and everyone walks according to his heart’s desire. Men in authority are afraid to speak, for those who have reached power by human interest are the slaves of those to whom they owe their advancement. And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth. All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The better ones of the laity shun the churches as schools of impiety and lift their hands in the deserts with sighs and tears to their Lord in heaven. The faith of the Fathers we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that in the past was canonically and lawfully promulgated.” (Ep. 92, 2).

Each period of confusion during the history of the Church is at the same time a possibility to receive many graces of strength and courage and a chance to demonstrate one’s love for Christ the Incarnated Truth. To Him each baptized and each priest and bishop promised inviolable fidelity, everyone according to his own state: through the baptismal vows, through the priestly promises, through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination. Indeed, every candidate to the episcopacy promised: “I will keep pure and integral the deposit of faith according the tradition which was always and everywhere preserved in the Church.” The ambiguity found in the section on divorced and remarried of the Final Reportcontradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Notwithstanding this, everyone in the Church – from the simple faithful to the holders of the Magisterium – should say:

“Non possumus!” I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods. I prefer the crystalline “image of Christ the Truth, rather than the image of the fox ornamented with gemstones” (Saint Irenaeus), for “I know whom I have believed”, “Scio, Cui credidi!” (2 Tim 1: 12).

Perspectives on the Synod on the Family

October 31, 2015

BCI was on a plane a few days ago when someone seated nearby brought up the Catholic Church. By and by, the discussion turned to what we thought about what is going on in the Catholic Church today with the “Synod on the Family.”   The short answer is that BCI is very concerned about the future of the Catholic Church right now and we believe all should be concerned and be praying for the Church.  So much excellent commentary is out there on this issue that BCI will highlight a few we think are worth reading or listening to by all:

Cardinal Burke: Synod’s final report ‘misleading,’ lacks ‘clarity’ on indissolubility of marriage (Lifesite News): 

He focuses on paragraphs 84-86 on divorce and remarriage, saying this section is of “immediate concern because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men.” He also says the way the quotation from Familaris Consortio is used is “misleading.”  Read more

The Synod explained via new media (Rorate Caeli)
“The Synod of Sin has concluded. For some perspective to understand the traditional position — from a non-traditional medium — we bring you two helpful tools. First up, a sermon from a traditional mission priest, looking at the present-day Church through the lens of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Click here to listen to this eye-opening sermon.

Second, see below for a video from The Remnant, featuring Dr. John Rao. Give it a few minutes, then buckle up:

“The failed Synod: everyone defeated; and Catholic morality in particular” (by Roberto  de Mattei, at Rorate Caeli)

The day after the XIV Synod on the Family, everyone seems to have won. Pope Francis has won, since he was able to find a compromising text among the opposing positions; the progressives have won since the approved text admits the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist; the conservatives have won, since the document doesn’t contain an explicit reference to Communion for the divorced [and remarried] and rejects “homosexual marriage” and the gender theory.

The morality of inculturation, that of “case by case”, relativizes and dissolves the moral law, which by definition is absolute and universal. There are no good intentions, nor extenuating circumstances which can transform a good act into a bad one or vice versa. Catholic morality does not admit exceptions: it is absolute and universal or it isn’t a moral law. The newspapers then are not wrong when they presented the final Relatio with this title: “The absolute prohibition for Communion to the divorced and remarried falls”.

In the end we find ourselves faced with an ambiguous and contradictory document, which permits everyone to shout victory; even if nobody has won anything. All have been defeated, starting with Catholic morality which emerges profoundly humiliated by the Synod on the Family concluded on October 24th.

Yes, some commentators say that the language in the final document does not expressly contradict Catholic Church moral teachings. However, the door has been cracked ajar with a tremendous amount of wiggle room. As Roberto de Mattei wrote, “The Relatio, doesn’t affirm the right for the divorced and remarried to receive Communion (and thus the right to adultery), but it denies the Church, de facto, the right to publically define as adulterous, the condition of the divorced and remarried, leaving the responsibility for evaluation [of this] to the conscience of the pastors and the divorced and remarried themselves.”

The absurdity of this notion is made impeccably clear by Cardinal Arinze, who said, people in objectively sinful situations can’t receive Holy Communion “in good conscience….There is such a thing as objective evil and objective good. Christ said he who [divorces his wife] and marries another, Christ has one word for that action, ‘adultery.’ That’s not my word. It is Christ’s word himself, who is humble and meek in heart, who is eternal truth. So, he knows what he’s saying.”

That such matters are now up for grabs is cause for grave concern. BCI believes all should be fasting and praying for Holy Mother Church.

Boston Pilot Response to Garrity Issue: “Meh”

September 22, 2015

In follow-up of the scandalous publication of Msgr. Paul Garrity’s opinion piece in the Boston diocesan paper saying that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the permanence of marriage is “ridiculous”, “untenable” and “disrespectful”, the Pilot has done a fair/mediocre job of cleaning up and correcting the mess they created.

They pulled Garrity’s column down after a week of letting people read it online and they published an very good article by Fr. David Barnes in last Friday’s edition defending the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Fr. Barnes also wrote a more detailed and explicit rebuttal to Msgr. Garrity’s piece on his own blog which is first-rate and excellent.

If the Pilot and Boston Archdiocese think publishing the piece by Fr. Barnes somehow wiped up the whole mess, they are sadly mistaken. Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture gave the Pilot two cheers for what they’ve done; BCI would give them a score of maybe 3-5 on a scale of 1 to 100.  We mostly agree with Phil, except for his rating on the effort. Here are excerpts from his piece, plus some commentary by BCI.

  • We agree with Phil that the Archdiocese of Boston published a direct attack on the Catholic faith by a member of their clergy in the archdiocesan paper.  Why Antonio Enrique at the Pilot let this heresy through is an unanswered question. Based on Msgr Garrity’s record, everyone at the Pilot should have expected anything from Garrity to be problematic.
  • We clearly should not expect an archdiocesan newspaper to merely maintain an appearance of neutrality regarding Catholic doctrine. There are truths of our faith. Period. That is all they should be publishing. Period.
  • After realizing the error, the Pilot left the article up for a week. Why?  We do not know. The only thing we can presume is that the Pilot and Boston Catholic Media wanted it to stay up for people to read.
  • Clearly, the Pilot did a good thing by getting Fr. Barnes to write a piece to refute what Msgr. Garrity said.  But what is published merely sounds like yet a different opinion. The blog post (not published in The Pilot) identified the heretical article by name and clearly stated the purpose of the blog post was to address areas of disagreement.  But still, even Fr. Barne’s wording sounds like opinion, not objective truth.  He says, “My friends, however, would find the author’s characterizations of those who disagree with his position to be unfounded and untrue…” and “I disagree with almost everything in the article.”  How about saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ prove that Msgr. Garrity is wrong on almost everything in the article?   All the Pilot did was give the appearance of balancing a critic of Church teaching with a supporter.
  • Still missing is an apology in the Pilot for running Msgr. Garrity’s column
  • Still missing is an explicit correction of the errors and heresies in Msgr. Garrity’s column. Cardinal O’Malley, Bishop Uglietto, Fr. Reed (who runs Catholic Media), Antonio Enrique (editor of the Pilot) and Msgr. Garrity himself all will be accountable to God on their judgment day for any souls led to sin by this piece. Do none of these people care about the souls of the faithful being led astray by their actions?
  • Still missing is a statement from Cardinal O’Malley or the Vicar General—not just another priest, but the archbishop or Vicar General—correcting the record.
  • Still missing is a retraction from Msgr. Garrity (but don’t hold your breath waiting for that)

Furthermore, it is clear that Msgr. Garrity continues to publish heresy in his parish bulletins, for example, writing in the bulletin about marriage and divorce in a way that implies that communion for the divorced and remarried is something that the Church should accept. (See Aug 30th bulletin, page 2).  Regardless of what Cardinal Kasper, the German bishops, or the Synod on the Family may opine, that opinion is neither the teaching of Jesus Christ nor the doctrine of the Catholic Church.  Even the Pope cannot change that teaching.

For the sake of the salvation of souls, the Pilot needs to correct their error publicly as described above.  Write to editor, Antonio Enrique aenrique@thebostonpilot.com and/or call The Pilot to urge this action. Ultimately, Msgr. Garrity needs to be removed from any position of pastoral responsibility where he can teach or share his opinions and he should be put out to pasture. Write to or call Vicar General Bishop Peter Uglietto: vicar_general@rcab.org; 617-746-5619 and Cardinal Sean O’Malley:  ArchbishopSean_O’Malley@rcab.org; 617-782-2544 to ask for that.

Cardinal O’Malley: Please Correct Heresy and Discipline Your Priest

September 17, 2015

Msgr. Paul Garrity is at it once again–this time with perhaps his most egregiously heretical public comments ever–published in the official Archdiocesan newspaper, The Boston Pilot. And Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston Archdiocese have been silent about the scandal and done nothing to correct the heresy.

What Garrity wrote in his editorial column, “Synod Needs Your Prayers” is thoroughly BAD. It is so heretical that it needs to be removed from being accessed and he needs to be made to publicly retract and correct his words.  Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute expressed the problems very well in this Open Letter to Cardinal O’Malley.

In his article, Msgr. Garrity directly assaults the indissolubility of marriage.  He said:

“It is ludicrous to assert that divorced couples who have found love and fidelity with new spouses are still recognized by the Church as being married to their former spouses after the passage of many years. It is equally untenable (and disrespectful) to try to convince these happily married couples that, in fact, their relationships are sinful. Moreover, the Church’s current prohibition regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried couples would seem to be at odds with the consistent teaching of the Gospel about love, forgiveness and mercy.

In this one paragraph, Msgr. Garrity heretically denies three teachings of the Catholic Church and then heretically asserts that there is a division between Holy Mother Church’s loving guidance of sinners and the Gospels.

As you know, the Catechism of the Catholic Churchparagraph 2089, defines heresy as “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Given this definition, it is clear that Msgr. Garrity is proclaiming heresy in the following circumstances:

  1. Monsignor Garrity said, “It is ludicrous to assert that divorced couples … are still recognized by the Church as being married to their former spouse after the passage of many years.” This claim is at complete odds with paragraph 1614 of the Catechism, which expressly states, “The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it ‘what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.'” Given this, divorce cannot actually dissolve a marriage bound by God Himself. Furthermore, when bride and groom take their wedding vows, they promise before God to be faithful to their spouses “until death,” so the caveat provided by Msgr. Garrity of “the passage of many years” likewise cannot dissolve a marriage. In light of the definition of heresy provided by Holy Mother Church, the only conclusion can be that Msgr. Garrity preached a heretical principle in your publication.
  2. Monsignor Garrity said, “It is equally untenable (and disrespectful) to try to convince these happily married couples that, in fact, their relationships are sinful.” Our Blessed Lord said, according to Mark, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12). In order for Msgr. Garrity to maintain this position, he must also blaspheme by claiming that what was said by Our Blessed Lord was “untenable and disrespectful.”
  3. Monsignor Garrity said, “The Church’s current prohibition regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried couples would seem to be at odds with the consistent teaching of the Gospel about love, forgiveness and mercy.” In this statement are two grave errors.
    1. Monsignor Garrity implicitly denies the sacrilege committed by those who receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. Saint Paul very clearly teaches, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” The Catechism of the Catholic Churchparagraph 2120, says, “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist.” What Msgr. Garrity says in this article is extremely scandalous, as it will likely embolden divorced and re-married Catholics to commit sacrilege against the Eucharist, thereby placing their souls in extreme peril.
    2. In this one statement, Msgr. Garrity attacks the Holiness of the Church.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 824, “United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. ‘All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God.’ It is in the Church that ‘the fullness of the means of salvation’ has been deposited. It is in her that ‘by the grace of God we acquire holiness.'” In contrast to the teaching that “The Church … is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” (para. 823), Msgr. Garrity suggests that the Church’s work to help poor sinners avoid sacrilege is somehow unloving, unforgiving and unmerciful. But even worse, Msgr. Garrity implies that Holy Mother Church is at sinful odds with Herself through a perceived inconsistency in Her teachings and in Her disciplines.

Your Eminence, this is not the first time Msgr. Garrity has openly preached views in direct opposition to Catholic Teaching. In 2013, Msgr. blasphemously compared homosexual “families” with the Holy Family in his parish bulletin.

[As BCI reported in 2013 in our post, “Boston pastor praised by Cardinal O’Malley puts Holy Family on par with homosexual couples“,] Garrity wrote:

 Taken all together, the first family of Christianity reminds us that there is no such thing as normal. Every family is different and this means that we need to broaden our understanding of family life beyond TV sitcoms and applaud the virtues of family living wherever we find them: two-parent families, single-parent families, blended families, families with two mommies or two daddies and adoptive families. What is most important is that we continually hold up the family as the instrument that God has chosen to communicate God’s unconditional love to the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society.

Your Eminence, countless souls are gravely imperiled by the outright heresy being preached by Msgr. Garrity. At this current time, where there is so much confusion and anxiety over the Church’s authentic and immutable teachings regarding the family, we beg you, for the sake of Msgr. Garritys soul and the souls of those led astray by him, to remove this article from your publication and publicly correct the error proclaimed by your priest.

Yesterday, the Catholic League of Masschusetts weighed in:

The Catholic Action League called Garrity’s column “a shocking disavowal of Catholic morality by a prominent pastor of the Archdiocese of Boston, in the Archbishop’s own newspaper.”

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following comment: “Garrity’s heretical assertions go far beyond the so-called concessions in pastoral practice envisaged by some synod fathers. Garrity unambiguously repudiates, and holds up to public ridicule, the constant, 2,000 year old doctrine of the Catholic Church on the indissolubility of a valid, sacramental marriage. Ordinary Catholics, reading Garrity in a diocesan newspaper published by Cardinal O’Malley, could be led to the erroneous belief that Catholic moral teaching is changeable.”

“Although Garrity invokes ‘love, forgiveness and mercy,’ he doesn’t practice it. Apparently, for him, the Spiritual Works of Mercy — counseling the doubtful, instructing the ignorant, and admonishing the sinner — are obsolete. Warning the flock of the dangers of mortal sin is intrinsic to the priesthood. For Garrity, such priestly duty is ‘disrespectful.’”

“There are three scandals here: that a Catholic pastor would propound such heresy; that an official Catholic newspaper would publish it; and that a Catholic archdiocese, would, by its silence, acquiesce in it. Twice in recent years, lay columnists who wrote opinion pieces in The Pilot critical of homosexuality were forced to clarify their comments. We will see if a different standard applies to a chancery connected cleric who mocks Catholic morality.”

Everyone reading this should be outraged. Here is who you should both call and email:

Cardinal Sean O’Malley:  ArchbishopSean_O’Malley@rcab.org; 617-782-2544

Vicar General Bishop Peter Uglietto: vicar_general@rcab.org; 617-746-5619

Episcopal Vicar (West Region) over Msgr. Garrity: Very Reverend Brian R. Kiely: 508-647-0296

Interim Episcopal Vicar and Secretary for Parish Life: Fr. Bryan Parrish: ReverendBryan_Parrish@rcab.org; 617-746-5618

Editor of The Boston Pilot Antonio Enrique: aenrique@thebostonpilot.com

Stop Baby Parts Trafficing Webcast: Tonight 9pm ET

September 15, 2015

Mass Citizens for Life invites all to register for a 40 Days for Life webinar, taking place at 9pm ET tonight.

The featured guest will be DAVID DALEIDEN, the 26-year-old director of the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover investigation caught Planned Parenthood red-handed in the grisly practice of harvesting and trafficking in aborted baby body parts.

Millions of Americans have been stunned and outraged after witnessing these human atrocities through multiple exposé videos and the groundswell of media coverage. The U.S. Congress has now launched hearings and investigations into the abortion chain, and a growing number of states have begun stripping millions of taxpayer dollars away from Planned Parenthood.

Now, the abortion empire is striking back

Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry — along with their powerful allies in Washington, D.C. — have just launched a full-scale war against David Daleiden.

Their high-powered, top-dollar legal, PR, and crisis management firms are rolling out a barrage of ruthless offensives in a desperate attempt to misdirect and mislead the American people … silence the Center for Medical Progress through court injunctions … and crush David through withering legal and personal attacks.

But just like the David who stood up against 
Goliath in Biblical times, David Daleiden is 
fearlessly taking on the abortion giant … 

… And YOU can help determine who will win this epic struggle by joining David and other top pro-life leaders for this one-time-only webcast.

WHAT: Urgent “Stop Baby Parts Trafficking” nationwide webcast

DATE: This coming Tuesday, September 15

TIME: 9 PM  Eastern (8 PM Central,  7 PM Mountain,  6 PM Pacific)



In addition to MCFL and David Daleiden, you’ll also hear from two of the top pro-life attorneys in the world — Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, andKatie Short of Life Legal Defense Foundation — and you’ll discover:

·  The latest shocking revelations about the aborted baby body part scandal — from behind the closed doors of Planned Parenthood …

·  The staggering impact the undercover investigation has achieved against America’s largest abortion chain …

·  The vital importance of ensuring that the abortion industry doesn’t succeed at silencing David and the Center for Medical Progress …

·  The devastating implications that Planned Parenthood’s ruthless attacks could have against life, truth, and justice if not stopped …

·  How YOU can help wake up America and stop Planned Parenthood’s inhuman practice of harvesting and trafficking aborted baby body parts!

Spread the word to everyone you know, and make sure to register and attend this important event:



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 660 other followers

%d bloggers like this: