Father Matthew Schneider is dead wrong

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Patheos blogger labels authentic Catholics as nihilists

Rebecca Bratten Weiss is, among other things, a writer on the Patheos website. Until this week, I had never heard of her so I had no preconceived ideas or impressions of her. 

On January 8th of this year, I read an article on Church Militant that briefly mentioned her name. I honestly didn't pay much attention to her name, as the article its self was so disgusting in its content -Franciscan University of Steubenville had supported a pornographic book giving a detailed account of masturbation and the Virgin Mary (after public uproar FUS changed their tune). This post isn't really about any of that- its about Weiss labeling Catholics who actually hold to the Catholic faith as "nihilists".

Today in my email, I received a link to one of Weiss' Patheos articles "Here’s What You Need to Understand About Catholic Media Conflicts" so I read Weiss for the first time. Her thinking completely perplexes me as does her use of the word "nihilists". 

Weiss: "I’d like to follow up by stating that sometimes it’s erroneous to frame a conflict as being between “two sides” at all. Sometimes the conflict is not so much a conflict as it is an attack by nihilists on diverse, well-meaning humans simply trying to do their best in the world."

According to Weiss, Catholics who hold to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church which have been passed down over the centuries are "nihilists" and self proclaimed Catholics who wish to change teachings and who often reject and/or ignore teachings...these people are "diverse, well-meaning humans simply trying to do their best in the world". Boggles the mind. But it gets worse...Weiss' example of one of these poor well-meaning humans is none other than heretical priest Fr. James Martin.

Weiss writes: Father James Martin of New Ways Ministry is a Jesuit priest with a special vocation for reaching out to Catholic-affiliated LGBTQ persons who feel marginalized, excluded, or even victimized in the church. This is a ministry which is built upon the most central of the church’s teachings about LGBTQ persons: namely, that “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Let's stop right there. Weiss labels Martin "of New Ways Ministry" seemingly unaware that the USCCB has CONDEMNED New Ways Ministry. 

Weiss: Father Martin is not a far-left Catholic, and has never advocated for a reversal of the magisterial teaching on the morality of homosexual acts, nor on gay marriage.

Hold the bus! Again, Weiss shows she has not done her homework. Spend any time reading Martin on social media and its clear. I have written about Martin's heretical beliefs HERE, HERE and HERE to name but a few times Martin has gone against Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

In "The LGBT Philosophies of James Martin and Patrick Hornbeck" Youtube video Martin says (*at the 26 mark)...

Martin states in the video he wants the Church to "reflect" on homosexual "love" because *he* has determined these relationships to be worthy of "reverence".

*Note to Fr. Martin, the Church has already reflected on homosexual "love" and found it to be DISORDERED. 

Clearly Martin continues to show he and his views are in direct opposition to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.

Weiss: For this, he has sometimes been criticized by leftist Catholics for not going far enough. I’ve been in many conversations with feminist academics who are critical of what they perceive as his unwillingness to push back against the existing magisterial teachings. And right-leaning Catholics get upset with him for not reiterating more strenuously the “homosexual acts are bad” element of magisterial teaching (for which, honestly, I commend him: gay Catholics have heard those lines all too frequently).

Again, I don't think Weiss has done her homework on Martin. Martin has repeatedly openly supported gay "marriage" and unions on social media. 

Fr.Martin promoting a lesbian couple fornicating for decades.

Here is Martin promoting a gay book that encourages gay "marriage"...

        

Most recently Martin promoted a blasphemous rosary on social media... 

I could go on, but why bother? We've all seen it from Martin for years now. We know he's a heretical priest doing great damage to the bewildered lost sheep who can't see the wolf before them. 

Weiss then turns her eyes to Church Militant and defends pornography being promoted at a Catholic University. 

Weiss: Recently, the far-right media tabloid Church Militant published an execrable and dishonest smear piece about Dr. Stephen Lewis of Franciscan University, who dares to teach actual literature in his upper-level literature classes. Dr. Lewis is no radical leftist, and is in fact fairly conservative. He simply understands that part of the role of an education is to prepare adults to encounter a broad range of human experiences, and to be able to engage with artistic works even if they contain difficult or problematic material.
This is nothing out of the ordinary for conservative Catholic academics who actually have functioning mental apparatus. In my doctoral program at University of Dallas we read any number of “scandalous” works from antiquity to modernity – from bawdy Greek epigrams to Gilles Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. We read feminist philosophy. We talked about the masturbation scene in Ulysses, and discussed the nature of language in Lolita. And Dallas is, largely, considered conservative. But it also happens to be a university, not a four-year Bible camp. At least when I was there, the dominant ethos was one of magnanimity, not fear, and we enjoyed academic freedom while also celebrating Catholic identity. I can not imagine a university of that caliber caving to the demands of the barely-literate tabloid media.

Once more, I question whether or not Weiss has done any homework at all on the subject of being Catholic and pornographic material. 

From the Vatican website: 

5. Among the alarming developments of these years has been the widespread increase of pornography and wanton violence in the media. Books and magazines, recordings, the cinema, the theatre, television, videocassettes, advertising displays and even telecommunications frequently offer a representation of violent behaviour or of permissiveness in sexual activity that reaches the point of being openly pornographic and morally offensive.

6. As reflections of the dark side of a human nature marred by sin, pornography and the exaltation of violence are age-old realities of the human condition. In the past quarter century, however, they have taken on new dimensions and have become serious social problems. At a time of widespread and unfortunate confusion about moral norms, the communications media have made pornography and violence accessible to a vastly expanded audience, including young people and even children, and a problem which at one time was confined mainly to wealthy countries has now begun, via the communications media, to corrupt moral values in developing nations.

10. While no one can consider himself or herself immune to the corrupting effects of pornography and violence or safe from injury at the hands of those acting under their influence, the young and the immature are especially vulnerable and the most likely to be victimized. Pornography and sadistic violence debase sexuality, corrode human relationships, exploit individuals - especially women and young people, undermine marriage and family life, foster anti-social behaviour and weaken the moral fibre of society itself.

11. Thus, one of the clear effects of pornography is sin. Willing participation in the production or dissemination of these noxious products can only be judged a serious moral evil. Likewise, production and dissemination of these materials could not continue if there were not a market for them, so those who use such materials not only do moral harm to themselves but contribute to the continuation of a nefarious trade. 

14. Even so called "soft core" pornography can have a progressively desensitizing effect, gradually rendering individuals morally numb and personally insensitive to the rights and dignity of others. Exposure to pornography can also be - like exposure to narcotics - habit-forming and can lead individuals to seek increasingly "hard core" and perverse material. The likelihood of anti-social behaviour can grow as this process continues.

15. Pornography can foster unhealthy preoccupations in fantasy and behaviour. It can interfere with personal moral growth and the development of healthy and mature relationships, especially in marriage and family life, where mutual trust and openness and personal moral integrity in thought and in action are so important.

16. Indeed, pornography can militate against the family character of true human sexual expression. The more sexual activity is considered as a continuing frenzied search for personal gratification rather than as an expression of enduring love in marriage, the more pornography can be considered as a factor contributing to the undermining of wholesome family life. 

25. EDUCATORS. The chief collaborators with parents in the moral formation of young people must be educators. Schools and other educational programs should support and inculcate the social and ethical values that promote the unity and health of families and of society itself. Of particular value are programs in media education to develop in young people a critical attitude and properly formed skills of discernment in using television, radio and other media, so that they might know how to resist manipulation and how to avoid merely passive listening and viewing habits. It is also important that schools emphasize the need for respect for the human person, the value of family life and the importance of personal moral integrity.

29. THE CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS. For the Church, the first responsibility is the constant, clear teaching of the faith and, therefore, of objective moral truth, including the truth about sexual morality. In an era of permissiveness and moral confusion, this requires that the Church be a prophetic voice and, often, a sign of contradiction. The so-called "ethic" of immediate personal gratification is fundamentally opposed to integral human growth and fulfillment. Education for family life and indeed for responsible life in society requires formation in chastity and self-discipline. By contrast, pornography and wanton violence can blind individuals to the divine image in the human person, can weaken marriage and family life and can do serious harm to individuals and to society itself. Wherever possible, the Church must join with other churches, denominations and religious groups in teaching and fostering this message. It must also make the best possible use of its own institutions and personnel to give education and formation concerning the media of social communications and their proper role in individual and social life. Special attention should be given to assisting parents in their efforts.  Thus, media education belongs in Catholic schools and other educational programs, in seminaries,8 in formation programs of religious and secular institutes, in the continuing formation of priests and in parish programs for youth and adults. Priests and Religious in pastoral and educational work should themselves be discrimating consumers of media who give good example in what they read and view.

Let's not forget the Catholic catechism on this either...

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Considering all of this, how in the world can Weiss label Catholics who HOLD to these teachings as "nihilists" while referring to Fr. James Martin as a "diverse, well-meaning human simply trying to do their best in the world"? 

Truly, boggles the mind.

I'll finish this with a quote by Saint John Bosco...

In Christ, 

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 

Sources: 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/steubenville-english-professor-promotes-blasphemous-book 

http://www.usccb.org/news/2010/10-028.cfm 

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHpKah-Kx-A

Vatican document on pornography: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_07051989_pornography_en.html

Mark Shea declares President Trump an Anti-Christ

...based on nonsense. 

Apparently, a protestant woman by the name of Paula White is one of President Trump's spiritual advisers and she said the following... 

“They say about our president, ‘Well, he is not presidential.’ Thank goodness. Thank goodness. Thank goodness,” White said. “And I mean that with all due respect. Because in other words, he is not a polished politician. In other words, he is authentically — whether people like it or not — has been raised up by God.” “Because God says that he raises up and places all people in places of authority,” she continued. “It is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down. When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand of God.”

Shea got his undies in a twist over this statement because he did not recognize that White, in her own protestant way, was referencing Sacred Scripture. 

Romans 13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)  
13 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

And because Shea doesn't know these Bible verses or deliberately ignored them, he concluded that #676 in the Catholic catechism is a better fit for the current Pro-life, God bless America, freedom of religion protecting President Trump. *funny, I don't recall Shea ever referring to Obama, the baby butcher as an antichrist*

CCC 676: The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism. 

Shea is of course, as he so often is, wrong. 

Shea writes: 

"Do I think Trump is The Antichrist? No. Do I think he is *an* antichrist? Yes. Antichrists are a dime a dozen.  You don’t need to puke pea soup to be an antichrist. You merely have to oppose Christ."

Not so fast Jack. It is the denial of God that makes one an antichrist according to Sacred Scripture... 

[1 John 2] 22 "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also." 

Trump is no pillar of Christianity, but neither is he denying whom God is. All protestants "oppose" Christ in one way or another because they reject Christ's Holy Catholic Church and oppose Her teachings. That makes them protestant, not de facto antichrists. 

If Shea's view were correct, then Shea as an ex-protestant would clearly be declaring himself (and all current non-Catholic Christians) to have been an antichrist for a good portion of his life. One wonders, does Mark Shea consider himself a reformed antichrist? 😏

We can clearly see President Trump's belief in God in the many speeches and statement he's made. President Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast... 

[in part] TRUMP: "I was blessed to be raised in a churched home. My mother and father taught me that to whom much is given, much is expected. I was sworn in on the very Bible from which my mother would teach us as young children, and that faith lives on in my heart every single day.The people in this room come from many, many backgrounds. You represent so many religions and so many views. But we are all united by our faith, in our creator and our firm knowledge that we are all equal in His eyes. We are not just flesh and bone and blood, we are human beings with souls. Our republic was formed on the basis that freedom is not a gift from government, but that freedom is a gift from God." 

 Another example, when Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. 

[President Trump] "On Tuesday Syrian President Bashar al Assad launched a horrible chemcial attack on innocent civilians using a deadly nerve agent. Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered at this very barbaric attack. No child of God should should ever suffer such horror. "Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council. "Numerous previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all found and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies. Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who passed. And we hope as long as America stands for justice and peace and harmony , we will in the end prevail. Good night and God Bless America and the entire world." 

Shea declares that because Trump when asked about his faith and asking God for forgiveness for his actions stated, “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”, he must certainly be antichrist. Again, that makes Trump a Protestant, not an antichrist. Shea clearly has a hard time separating the two.

By the biblical definition there are billions of antichrists in the world...pagans, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, atheists, etc,...but Trump is not among them. 


My message to Mark Shea...😇

In Christ, 


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 


Sources: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/08/trump-spiritual-advisor-paula-white.html#disqus_thread

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/22/trump-paula-white-raised-up-by-god/

http://www.wltx.com/news/nation/president-trump-no-child-of-god-should-suffer-such-harms/429393512

http://time.com/4658012/donald-trump-national-prayer-breakfast-transcript/


P.S. 
I don't think Mark Shea likes me...😎

Can we say #Snowflake? 😊 

Giving up porn for Lent

"The spiritual combat in which we kill our passions to put on the new man is the most difficult struggle of all. We must never weary of this combat, but fight the holy fight fervently and perseveringly." - St. Nilus

Has anyone given up porn for lent?  That's not just pornographic movies or magazines, its also "romance" books filled with sex scenes- books and movies like "50 Shades of Grey".

I can't help but wonder how many Catholics filled the movie theater THE FIRST WEEKEND of Lent to watch the pornographic "50 Shades of Grey" on the big screen.

Couldn't give it up even for Lent, eh?

Porn in all its forms, is addicting.

I've got my own story with the porn found in women's "romance" novels.

I gave up "romance" books when I became Catholic- actually along my way to becoming Catholic.  Prior to that, I had been reading "romance" books since I was a pre-teen and never thought twice about it. No one in my Baptist faith ever bothered to mention that women's "romance" books were not in keeping with our Christian faith.

The women in my family watched soap operas (only one of them read "romance" books).  So growing up and seeing the "romance" displayed on soap operas was my first exposure to "romance" - totally corrupt of course.  No child should be raised thinking Luke raping Laura (General Hospital) was the beginning of their "romance" and eventual marriage.  But that is all I knew of "romance" as a young child.  Books didn't come into play until my pre-teen years.

"Romance" book reading started innocently enough with me.  When I was in 8th grade I read "Gone With the Wind" and I was hooked on books that mixed history with romance.  The cover of "Gone with the Wind" was my template for locating other books to read (until I began to find my favorite authors).  If the cover had Fabio on it, I read it.  Little did I know at that time, the "historical romance" section of the book store included books loaded with graphic sex scenes.  I can still remember the FIRST "historic romance" book I read - because it was SO shocking to me as a young pre-teen it was burnt into my mind and to this day (decades later) I can still recall the story, the cover and of course the sex scenes in that book.  I read hundreds after that one and those are a blur, but the first one sticks.  My view of sex had been completely corrupted by "romance" books and my view of adult romantic relationships had been corrupted by soap operas.

My Mother, once said to me as a pre-teen, "You're too young to read that" -which only indicated to me that in a few years I would be old enough to pick the book back up again and then read it.  So that's what I did- for years.  I read "romance" books daily.  My friends and I would swap books, spend weekends at some book warehouse spending our part-time job money on romance books.  I never left home without a "romance" book stuffed in my purse.

Some time ago, Katrina at The Crescat wrote a post about a "romance" book that had been turned into a mini series. In one of the comments I briefly mentioned my own involvement with "romance" books.  Years ago, long before I was Catholic or even thought of being Catholic I had another blog.  A successful book/movie reviewing blog which focused mainly on "romance" books.  For years I wrote reviews for "romance" publishers and authors- they sent me free books and swag and I offered give-aways of free "romance" merchandise- I even created a template and header for an "exotic romance" author I had befriended.  I made lots of friends with "romance" authors who wrote "soft porn" romance and "erotic romance".  We were friends outside of blogging.  We shared about our lives, husbands, children, work etc.  I knew these women as friends.  Anything they or their publishers sent to me I would read and review for them.  These are well known authors who've sold millions of books.

That all began to change when I started my journey into the Catholic faith.  I hadn't viewed reading "romance" as sinful in anyway.  To me, "its just fiction" was how I looked at it.  I never considered it to be harmful.  It was a hobby.  I read books because it was fun and my friends and I enjoyed the "romance" in them.  Just as I had spent time cross-stitching or bible reading or collecting shells at the beach, reading romance was just another past-time to me.  It was something to do with whatever free time I had. I never thought I was spending my time in sin by reading "romance" books because my view of "romance" had been so corrupted at a young age I was blinded to it.

It was when I began (unknowingly at the time) my journey towards the Catholic faith that how I viewed things changed.  I began to question what I was reading and watching on television.  I asked myself more and more "Is this the sort of entertainment I should be entertaining myself with?"  

The guilt came.  No longer was it fun to read or review these books.  It felt wrong.  I felt guilty.  I thought, "Would I discuss this book with Jesus?  Would I sit down and watch this movie with Jesus if he walked into my house right now?"

No way!  I would HIDE the books and turn off the TV.

Then I knew.  What I had been doing for years was wrong.

I closed down the book blog, said goodbye to all the publishers, authors and other people I had met and befriended in the "romance" world.  I filled garbage bags with books and DVD's from my house and tossed them in the trash along with all the "romance" swag I had accumulated over the years.  Autographed books and photographs went too.

I completely cleansed my house of everything that was associated with "romance" books and movies.  But I couldn't cleanse my mind of what I had taken in.  Sadly, that was there to stay.  You can't get innocence back once it's lost.  Be very careful what example you're setting for your own children!

A few Catholic blogs, including Katrina over at The Crescat shared a video this week, by Russell Brand about porn and how destructive it is to people.

Because porn is such a huge problem for all people today...men, women (especially all those women reading and watching "50 Shades of Grey") and children (horrible), I thought, I too would share this video on my blog.

If you're a Catholic woman still reading "romance" books, won't you please consider giving it up?

How about starting with this Lent?  It's not too late!

Go to confession and toss out all the books and start over and don't go back when Lent is over!

Give up all forms of pornography forever!



In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner


Catholic Catechism:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Links: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kvzamjQW9M

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2015/02/russel-brands-anti-porn-rant.html

http://www.kofc.org/en/catechism/index.html

The Anchoress at Patheos is wrong

Patheos is becoming notorious for closing their comment box- especially when they don’t hear the feedback they were hoping for. 

The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) has decided to opine about Catholics who are scandalized by Cardinal Dolan’s participation as Grand Marshal for the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day parade which has now become another outlet for “gay pride”.  Scalia believes we are wrong and goes on to twist assorted Scripture in an attempt to prove her point.  Mostly she failed-hence the reason she closed her comments. When the comments area of her Patheos blog got ugly, Scalia closed the comments down.

Here are a few comments from her blog before the comment box was closed...

I think these people are spot on!  

So again, like with Fr. Longenecker's "Church of Nasty" I am going to respond to why I believe Elizabeth Scalia is wrong here on my own blog because her comment area is closed.

For the first time openly gay homosexuals and their supporters will march with gay pride banners in the parade with a Catholic Cardinal as Grand Marshall kicking off the parade.  Devout Catholics are scandalized that this Cardinal (like those before him) sees nothing wrong with this.

Other’s have already written about the “cause of scandal” the Cardinal is (and will) inflict on devout Catholics, so I won’t repeat the obvious.

What I am going to do is point out Scalia's errors.

First, she gives Biblical examples of people in sin that were “quietly” corrected by Jesus (neglecting to recall when Jesus made a whip and used it against people, flipping tables and emptying the temple area of those who disrespected his Father's Temple).

Then she has this to say about Dolan…

What about a bishop agreeing to be Grand Marshall in a Saint Patrick’s Day parade wherein homosexual groups — yes, even the sort of lobbyist homosexual groups over which Pope Francis expressed concern — will be included among the participants?

That’s pretty bad, right? For some it is causing scandal and confusion and calumny and they are loudly suggesting — in a way Jesus never would — that the bishop should repent, apologize, express contrition (things Jesus didn’t demand of the adulterous woman) and then resign his office. They want him to literally remove himself from the area, before his uncleanliness renders everyone else unclean.

“in a way Jesus never would” - ??  Really? 

"Get behind me Satan!" was probably not whispered by Christ to Peter so no one else would hear. 

Matthew 16

²¹ From then onwards Jesus began to make it clear to his disciples that he was destined to go to Jerusalem and suffer grievously at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes and to be put to death and to be raised up on the third day.²² Then, taking him aside, Peter started to rebuke him. 'Heaven preserve you, Lord,' he said, 'this must not happen to you.' ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle in my path, because you are thinking not as God thinks but as human beings do.'

The Apostles corrected each other- loudly and publicly -remember Saint Paul to Saint Peter-the pope!?  Saint Paul didn’t hold back because Jesus didn’t hold back.  

We are (in the case of Dolan) talking about when a member of the CLERGY commits scandal.

“Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, but I'm here among you to prevent something far worst for you. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal- who allow scandals to destroy faith- are guilty of spiritual suicide.” -- St. Francis de Sales

Another example she gives is about the Prodigal Son, suggesting that Cardinal Dolan leading a parade under gay pride banners is the same as the Prodigal son’s father running out to greet his REPENTING son who has seen the errors of his ways and returned to his father. This is truly cringe worthy...

Quote: I’m not sure a bishop has a choice but to run out to meet prodigals, regardless of motivating factors. The father wants everyone to come home and be with him. Once they’re at the doorstep, they may be encouraged to come in; once they’re inside, they can be talked with, nurtured, fed, encouraged, formed, and made whole. This cannot happen as long as they are off in the faraway places.

The key here, aside from the father running out to the prodigal son, is that he ran out while the son was still a long way off.Later in the story, the older son — obedient and responsible — feels shortchanged and resentful, because the father has been so welcoming of the wastrel while barely noticing the elder son’s daily toil. And what does the father do? He goes out to his elder son, to reassure him that his faithfulness is seen and known. He tells him, “everything I have is yours” even while urging him to make his returning brother welcome.Because only in this way can his family eventually become whole, and holy.

Let’s be perfectly clear…gay rights supporters marching under gay pride banners in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade are NOT- I repeat- are NOT prodigal sons HUMBLY returning to the father. 

They are in fact more like the sexually immoral mob pounding on Lot’s door demanding homosexual sex with the angels visiting Lot in Genesis 19! 

What was God’s response to that?  The complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah!

Scalia also paints Dolan at the now notorious dinner with Barack Obama as if he [Dolan] were Jesus eating with the Pharisees.

Quote: Understanding the circumstances surrounding any event plays hell with our easy judgments, doesn’t it?

Why would a bishop — say, for instance New York’s Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan — participate in a political dinner that hosts real tax-collectors and known liars and sinners (as opposed to the less-obvious ones) and rather few actual holy men and women? Well for one thing, the dinner keeps the church present in a public square that would like to usher it out. One cannot speak to souls who bar you from the plaza. For another, it raises a huge amount of money for an organization that does a lot of good for people facing poverty and ruin. A bishop might risk causing “scandal and confusion” for the sake of those complicating, gray-inducing factors.Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were at table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”So Jesus ate and socialized, probably very pleasantly, with awful people. If we do not want to see a bishop seated next to a sinner unless that bishop is loudly consigning the sinner to hell, well then, we don’t want to see a bishop sitting next to anyone. And we do not want to see a bishop who models Christ Jesus.
But we were never supposed to want to be like the pharisees, nor expect it of our shepherds.

Again, Elizabeth Scalia is wrong. 

First her example is off.  Obama did not invite Dolan to a public dinner – Dolan invited the pro-abortion, forced HHS mandate on Catholics president to dinner.

Secondly, she COMPLETELY misses the point that the “sick” are those in sin seeking healing from the Physician.  If Jesus is the physician to heal them (and he is), he MUST tell them their sin (remember the woman at the well?) so they can confess and be healed! 

Did Dolan tell Obama over dinner that Obama was "sick" and needed to be healed?

Will Dolan go to those holding gay pride banners and tell them they are "sick" and need to be healed?   If you believe that will happen I have a bridge to sell you.

When Jesus ate with the Pharisees he corrected them at the dinner in front of everyone – did Dolan do that?

Luke 7 - ³⁶ One of the Pharisees asked Jesus^[j] to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. ³⁷ And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. ³⁸ She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. ³⁹ Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.” ⁴⁰ Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” ⁴¹ “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii,^[k] and the other fifty. ⁴² When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” ⁴³ Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus^[l] said to him, “You have judged rightly.” ⁴⁴ Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. ⁴⁵ You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. ⁴⁶ You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.⁴⁷ Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” 

Dolan did NOT do as Jesus Christ did.  Dolan joined in the celebration, eating and drinking with sinners without ever mentioning their sin or pointing out their errors.  He didn’t ask them if they wanted to be healed by Christ our physician.  He

didn’t even present himself as WORRIED for the souls at that dinner, rather he belly laughed with them, poised for photos and scandalized devout Catholics with the timing (remember what was going on at the time of this dinner 2012 election and the HHS abortion/birth control mandate being forced on Catholics) of his public cuddling with Barack Obama.

I am reminded more of Jesus’ teaching on the Seven Woes…

Matthew 23 - "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ² “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; ³ therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. ⁴ They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. ⁵ They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. ⁶ They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, ⁷ and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi."

When the Faithful are scandalized REPEATEDLY by Catholic clergy there is a serious problem that must be addressed. Either the Catholic faithful are TOO pious or the clergy are truly scandalous.

Scandal:

Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

 2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."⁸⁶ Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.⁸⁷ 

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."⁸⁸ This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,⁸⁹ or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. 

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!

In light of the Church's teaching on scandal I do not believe the Catholic laity who are concerned with Dolan's scandalous behavior are "too pious", I believe they are spot on.


In Christ,

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

Link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/09/09/dolan-is-charged-to-model-christ-not-the-pharisees/

Link: http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47&bible_chapter=16

Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-tells-catholic-church-at-al-smith-dinner-tribulation-produces-perseve