A few days ago, I posted about the reasons why I believe that the Catholic Church in the Washington DC area has not fought or even mentioned the Transgender Bill in the People's Republic of Montgomery County.
Part of my call on the Archbishop to get rid of the rot within the Church is due to the story that has made the news over the last two weeks. This is from The Navy Times:
An HIV-positive Catholic Navy chaplain was sentenced Thursday to no more than two years in the brig for sexual misconduct with several men including an enlisted Marine, an Air Force officer and two Naval Academy midshipmen.
In the end, Lee pleaded guilty to two counts of sodomy, one count of aggravated assault, three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer, two counts of failure to obey a lawful order, and three lesser charges.
I really do not want to get into all of the disgusting details, but this not something that just happened when he entered the military as a chaplain. This guy is a repeat offender! He has been involved in this type of activity for many years.
I hate to say this, and am ashamed to, but he was without a doubt involved in this sort of activity in the seminary. Where were the Seminary Rector and Spiritual Director on this? You mean no one had heard anything about this type of behavior? Or maybe they heard about it and looked the other way? Maybe worse.
The Archdiocese for the Military Services and the Archdiocese of Washington may get away with saying that the first they heard about this only a few weeks ago, when he (Fr. Lee) informed them that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct. They may get away legally with saying that they had received no prior allegations about this behavior, but I doubt very highly that they knew nothing about his behavior. As I said earlier, this is not something that just happened overnight. There were probably rumors and talk going on for years, but no one said a word or did anything.
As terrible and horrible those who have abused children, this one - actively homosexual priests - is rotting the Church from within.
It is time for our prelates to clean house and to get rid of the rot within. If they can't, then they know what the honorable thing to do is.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The Rot Within.
A few weeks ago, I posted a blog about the Montgomery County Transgender Bill. For a couple of days I kept asking, "Where was the Church? Why haven't they opposed this?"
Nothing was publicized by the Maryland Catholic Conference.
There was nothing in the Catholic Standard (the "official" newspaper of the Archdiocese of Washington).
There was no statement by the Archbishop.
There was no statement in my parish bulletin.
Nothing, Nada, Zip.
When I asked a good friend of mine about this, he said, "The reason they are saying nothing is because they are hiding them." I thought about this, but said nothing.
A few days later, I was talking to another friend, someone who would know about such things. When I asked him about this he said: "They (the bishops, the Catholic press, etc.) have not said anything because they are scared that if they come out against this, there will be priests who are outed because they either do it or have relations with those who do."
Nothing was publicized by the Maryland Catholic Conference.
There was nothing in the Catholic Standard (the "official" newspaper of the Archdiocese of Washington).
There was no statement by the Archbishop.
There was no statement in my parish bulletin.
Nothing, Nada, Zip.
When I asked a good friend of mine about this, he said, "The reason they are saying nothing is because they are hiding them." I thought about this, but said nothing.
A few days later, I was talking to another friend, someone who would know about such things. When I asked him about this he said: "They (the bishops, the Catholic press, etc.) have not said anything because they are scared that if they come out against this, there will be priests who are outed because they either do it or have relations with those who do."
When will Archbishop Wuerl come clean on this matter? When will Bishop Laverde (Arlington) come clean? When will Cardinals Egan (NY) and Mahoney (LA) come clean? When will they all come clean?
This, my friends, is the rot from within. There are a number of priests who are active homosexuals.
When will they get rid of the rot within?Friday, December 7, 2007
Remember Pearl Harbor
On this day in 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked and marked entry of the US into World War 2. (Yes, I know the formal declaration would come later.)
In 1994, I had the opportunity to visit the Battleship Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. What I remember so vividly is that oil still rises from the tomb of all those who died when it capsized. A reminder to all those who visit that we should never forget.
On this day, let's once again take a moment to remember those who died on that day and all those who have died since protecting our freedoms.
PS: Remember, December 8th is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It is a Holy Day of Obligation and since it falls on a Saturday, no excuses.
In 1994, I had the opportunity to visit the Battleship Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. What I remember so vividly is that oil still rises from the tomb of all those who died when it capsized. A reminder to all those who visit that we should never forget.
On this day, let's once again take a moment to remember those who died on that day and all those who have died since protecting our freedoms.
PS: Remember, December 8th is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It is a Holy Day of Obligation and since it falls on a Saturday, no excuses.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Philly Boy Scouts Update...
Did you know that the Boy Scouts of Philly built the building they are currently in and gave it to the City of Philly? Did you know that they have an agreement with the city that they only pay $1 per year in perpetuity?
I just found this information out. Isn't that interesting.
Maybe the Boy Scouts should ask for the building back.
Maybe a good old fashioned lawsuit is in order here.
I just found this information out. Isn't that interesting.
Maybe the Boy Scouts should ask for the building back.
Maybe a good old fashioned lawsuit is in order here.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Stand Firm Philly Boy Scouts, Stand Firm!
The Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America have decided to ignore the City of Philadelphia call to renounce their policy on homosexuals. Because of that, they will be required to pay the City of Philly $200,000 per year in rent on the property they are using as their offices. This will take effect on June 1, 2008.
As you know, the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, may exclude those who do not abide by their rules/beliefs, such as gays, atheists and agnostics from employment or volunteer positions. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Since that time, many local (esp. liberal) governments have done whatever they can to remove the Boy Scouts from their property or exclude them -- including use of various facilities. For example, right here in our own People's Republic of Montgomery County, the MoCo school administration banned fliers from being distributed to student about Scouting. This was fought by the National Capital Area Council - BSA and they won! Now, the MoCo Public Schools must distribute Scouting fliers along with ever other group.
How did they do it? It was because the Republicans in the Congress helped to pass the Support Our Scouts Act to protect Scouting groups from being denied access to public facilities in response to their stance on homosexuality. After some letters (and maybe the threat of a lawsuit?), the MoCo Public Schools sent out a note to all principals about this. It took a while to get this word out but the word is out.
Now, let me get back to the Philly situation for a moment. I wonder if the Philly government has thought about all of the money that the Boy Scouts save them by providing service projects, such as litter pick-up, building bird boxes, etc. I bet it is much more than the $200,000 they wish to charge. Maybe the Scouts in Philly should direct their service projects to organizations that support their beliefs and ideals and not the local government. Let's see who really benefits in the end.
Now for those of you who say, who cares, recently, the some members (two adults and four boys) of the Cub Scout Pack sponsored by my parish participated in a litter clean up. Each spent apx. 2 hours at this task. Even if it is calculated at 6 hours of labor, how much money did they save our local government? If you figure $20 per hour (wages and benefits), that equals $120. Multiply that hundreds of times over the year and it is a "pretty penny."
The Boy Scouts are one of the last groups to stand firm on these issues. I congratulate them and am proud to be among those who can call themselves a Boy Scout.
As you know, the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, may exclude those who do not abide by their rules/beliefs, such as gays, atheists and agnostics from employment or volunteer positions. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Since that time, many local (esp. liberal) governments have done whatever they can to remove the Boy Scouts from their property or exclude them -- including use of various facilities. For example, right here in our own People's Republic of Montgomery County, the MoCo school administration banned fliers from being distributed to student about Scouting. This was fought by the National Capital Area Council - BSA and they won! Now, the MoCo Public Schools must distribute Scouting fliers along with ever other group.
How did they do it? It was because the Republicans in the Congress helped to pass the Support Our Scouts Act to protect Scouting groups from being denied access to public facilities in response to their stance on homosexuality. After some letters (and maybe the threat of a lawsuit?), the MoCo Public Schools sent out a note to all principals about this. It took a while to get this word out but the word is out.
Now, let me get back to the Philly situation for a moment. I wonder if the Philly government has thought about all of the money that the Boy Scouts save them by providing service projects, such as litter pick-up, building bird boxes, etc. I bet it is much more than the $200,000 they wish to charge. Maybe the Scouts in Philly should direct their service projects to organizations that support their beliefs and ideals and not the local government. Let's see who really benefits in the end.
Now for those of you who say, who cares, recently, the some members (two adults and four boys) of the Cub Scout Pack sponsored by my parish participated in a litter clean up. Each spent apx. 2 hours at this task. Even if it is calculated at 6 hours of labor, how much money did they save our local government? If you figure $20 per hour (wages and benefits), that equals $120. Multiply that hundreds of times over the year and it is a "pretty penny."
The Boy Scouts are one of the last groups to stand firm on these issues. I congratulate them and am proud to be among those who can call themselves a Boy Scout.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
As we move more and more closer to the primaries for US president, the issue of the denial of communion by a priest has once again come into question.
In the Archdiocese of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick 9the former archbishop) was adamant regarding the administering of the Eurcharist to politicians who support abortion. My understanding that is it is up to the communicant to be in a state of grace for him or her to decide to receive communion. It is not up to the priest.
Unfortunately, Archbishop Wuerl has decided to keep this policy in place. This I disagree with him wholeheartedly.
Now, why do I bring up this subject? because I came across a reference (and I am not certain where) to the following article published in the PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58 entitled: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin by R. L. BURKE.
Who is R.L Burke? Why he is the Archbishop of St. Louis who stated that he would not give communion to John Kerry in the 2004 election.
(Now there are many more people out there who are more knowledgable about this subject than I am, so if you feel that I am in error, please feel free to write to me and we can discuss the issue.)
After reading though the article, I think that the conclusions presented speak the most to the average catholic.
What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?
First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty."
Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.
Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.
Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that "no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it."
Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.
But what I think is just as important...
Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.
In the Archdiocese of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick 9the former archbishop) was adamant regarding the administering of the Eurcharist to politicians who support abortion. My understanding that is it is up to the communicant to be in a state of grace for him or her to decide to receive communion. It is not up to the priest.
Unfortunately, Archbishop Wuerl has decided to keep this policy in place. This I disagree with him wholeheartedly.
Now, why do I bring up this subject? because I came across a reference (and I am not certain where) to the following article published in the PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58 entitled: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin by R. L. BURKE.
Who is R.L Burke? Why he is the Archbishop of St. Louis who stated that he would not give communion to John Kerry in the 2004 election.
(Now there are many more people out there who are more knowledgable about this subject than I am, so if you feel that I am in error, please feel free to write to me and we can discuss the issue.)
After reading though the article, I think that the conclusions presented speak the most to the average catholic.
What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?
First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty."
Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.
Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.
Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that "no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it."
Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.
But what I think is just as important...
Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)