Bishop John Keenan – Enemy of the Faith

Sunday, April 23, 2017, 4:00 PM
Pause For Hope Ecumenical Prayer Service 
 
For all those affected by Cancer.
 
Bishop John Keenan, Rev Maureen Leitch
 
Guest Speaker Mr Tony Fitzpatrick,  Player, Manager and now CEO of St Mirren Football Club
 
St Mirin’s Cathedral, Paisley.

Comment:
Blogger, Petrus, who resides in the Diocese of Paisley, submitted the following for our discussion in the context of the above ecumenical service.  It strikes me that Bishop Keenan will have his work cut out explaining to Catholic girls why they can’t be priests, since (they will assume) Protestant women may be “priests” –  and even sit up there beside the Bishop! That’s one issue that springs to mind looking at the above advert.  Petrus covers the rest below, concluding: Pope Pius IX, is very clear that ecumenical gatherings, such as the one hosted by Bishop Keenan, are contrary to the Catholic faith.”  Does this mean, then, that Bishop Keenan is an enemy of the Faith? 

Pope Pius IX

“You well know, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, that among the many deplorable evils which disturb and afflict principally the ecclesiastical and civil society, two stand out in our day and are justly considered to be the origin of the others. 

In effect, you are aware of the innumerable and fatal damages which the terrible error of Indifferentism causes to Christian and civil society. It causes us to forget our duties to God in Whom we live and act and have our being. It causes us to lose our concern about our Holy Religion and destroys almost to the very foundation all law, justice, and virtue. 

There is little difference between this most vile form of indifference and the demonic system of indifference between the different religions. According to this system, those who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true Faith and forget their own salvation, and who teach contradictory beliefs which never had stable doctrine, admit no distinction among the different creeds. Rather, they make a pact with everyone, and defend that the haven of eternal salvation is open to the followers of all religions, whatever they might be. They do not care about the diversity of their doctrines as long as they agree to combat the one that is the unique truth.

You see, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethen, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and miserably killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. ”  (Encyclical Singulari quidem   §§ 3-4)                                                 

As you can see from the advert above, Bishop John Keenan of Paisley will host an ecumenical prayer service in St Mirin’s Cathedral, for those suffering from cancer .  He will be joined by Church of Scotland minister, Rev Maureen Leitch. The Bishop of Paisley will share the sanctuary of a Catholic cathedral with a female “minister” of a Protestant denomination who has no valid orders or right to preach/teach.   

Bishop Keenan is often claimed to be “conservative”.  However, the ad above shows that he is an outright Modernist. The bishop is more concerned with promoting Indifferentism than praying for the conversion of Scotland. Clearly he has never read the encyclical above by Pope Pius IX, who is very clear that ecumenical gatherings, such as the one hosted by Bishop Keenan, are contrary to the Catholic faith.  

Comments invited… 

Catholic Schools Vs Catholic Education

First Minister praises Catholic schools
First Minster Nicola Sturgeon praised Catholic schools during a meeting with Archbishop Philip Tartaglia and other faith leaders on Friday January 13.      muslim-schoolgirl

The SNP leader was chairing an annual meeting of Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS) which brings leaders from a range of denominations together, including the Glasgow archbishop, who is president of the Scottish Bishops’ Conference, and the director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office Anthony Horan.

Speaking about a new community cohesion initiative, the First Minister commended the work of Catholic schools and singled-out St Albert’s Primary in Glasgow’s Southside for praise. Acknowledging the fact that the majority of pupils at the school are Muslim children—drawing most of its pupils from areas of traditionally high immigration—Mrs Sturgeon praised headteacher, Clare Harker. “It is fantastic that a school with a Christian Catholic ethos finds a way to respect the values of the children there,” she said.

The First Minister also said churches had a key role to play in community cohesion. “The trust you have in these communities can promote understanding,” she told the faith leaders. “We are at a pivotal moment and we need to try in our small way to give international leadership to diversity as strength and not just weakness. There is scope for us to work collectively.”

Among those at the meeting with the archbishop (above) were Rev Matthew Ross (Secretary of ACTS), Rev Alexander Ritchie (United Free Church of Scotland), Major Steven Turner (Salvation Army), Norman Graham (Baptist Union of Scotland), Rt Rev Russell Barr (Moderator of the Church of Scotland), and Most Revd Bishop David Chillingworth (Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

Mrs Sturgeon also spoke about the challenge, for both government and wider society, of providing social care for an ageing population, particularly in relation to dementia. “We need to learn from you, to understand what the churches can bring [in relation to care for those with dementia],” she told the church leaders, adding that ‘you [the churches] are trusted, particularly regarding older people’s care.’

The SCO has been running a campaign since October to make Catholic churches ‘dementia friendly,’ with two churches signing up to the scheme in recent weeks.

At the end of the meeting, Mrs Sturgeon praised the work of volunteers and the third sector, and highlighted the value of the meetings with church leaders. “It is a good opportunity for me to hear from you and how we can work together,” she said. “I value this tradition.”

Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, said: “The meeting is an opportunity for leaders of a number of Christian denominations to speak with the First Minister and to give her visibility as to the work they are doing in their local communities and wider Scottish society. It was extremely pleasing to hear the First Minister commend the value of Catholic schools.”

Speaking after the meeting, Nicola Sturgeon said: “Scotland is a place where we celebrate our differences, while recognising the many things that unite us and where people of all races, faiths and background feel safe and respected.

“It is important that everyone is open to each other’s values and it is essential that we safeguard our shared vision of a multicultural, open and tolerant Scotland. Our faith communities play a significant role here, and abroad, and we welcome their contribution and input into our nation’s civic life to enrich us all.”

Comment: 

Catholic schools were established to teach the Catholic Faith with conviction, as part of the process of educating Catholic children at home, school, and in the parish – e.g. via preaching.

Manifestly, that is no longer the aim of Catholic “educators”.

If the Muslim community can so successfully target and take over Catholic Schools and if a Protestant First Minister of a Protestant Scotland can “commend the value of Catholic schools” then, self-evidently, they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

Maybe it’s now time to hand them all over to parents who actually care about what their children believe and who want them  to be properly taught how to live in the world in accordance with their religious beliefs. Yes? Muslims seem to fit the bill nicely. 

After all, if the Catholic hierarchy don’t give a toss, and if Catholic parents don’t have a clue, what’s the point of keeping up the pretence?  

Having a bunch of buildings labelled “Catholic schools” is not remotely the same thing  as providing a Catholic education.  Home-schoolers provide a Catholic education without the buildings.  Well?  Is it right to seek to justify Catholic schools when they self-evidently do not provide a Catholic education?  

Rocky Road From Dublin: Irish Bishops In Rome – seeking end of celibacy?

The Irish Bishops are in Rome for their ad limina visit

shamrockBelow, report from The Irish Catholic…

The Irish hierarchy will not ask Pope Francis to consider permitting priests who left to get married to return to ministry at a meeting in Rome next week after failing to reach a consensus, The Irish Catholic can reveal.

However, Bishop Leo O’Reilly, who first brought the proposal for discussion with his fellow Irish bishops, said the issue may well come up during a series of meetings the Irish bishops are due to have with the Pontiff and senior Vatican officials in coming days.

The possibility of married men being ordained to the priesthood in Ireland may come up in next week’s meeting between the bishops and Pope Francis, according to the bishop who in 2015 said the idea should be considered.

The bishop’s observation comes against a background of rumours that the Pope is willing to allow married former priests to return to ministry in Brazil on a phased and experimental basis, and as Ireland’s bishops are due to make their first ad limina visit  to Rome in a decade.

In June 2015, Kilmore’s Bishop Leo O’Reilly said he was liaising with other bishops about setting up a commission to discuss the possibilities of ordaining married men and of appointing female deacons, saying that the Pope encouraged individual bishops and bishops’ conferences to be creative in looking at ways to do ministry in the future, and that Ireland bishops must “consider all options”.

Saints are used to handling snakes...

Saints are used to handling snakes…

However, Dr O’Reilly told The Irish Catholic, no decision was made when he raised the matter with his fellow bishops in 2015. 

“There was a discussion about it at the bishops’ conference, and it was inconclusive – there was no decision taken at that point, and that’s where it rested,” he said.

“Where it came from originally was the diocesan pastoral plan,” he said, highlighting how it had arisen following an 18-month listening process in his Kilmore diocese which had led in turn to a diocesan assembly and a new diocesan pastoral plan to tackle such challenges facing the Church as the declining number of priests.

“The request of the plan was that I would bring it to the bishops’ conference, which I have done,” he continued. “I don’t know whether there is anything more that I could do on it.”

At the same time, he said, there was a chance that the proposal could be raised at next week’s ad limina visit of the Irish bishops to Rome. “I’d say it’s possible,” he said, “because I would have sent in the pastoral plan as part of the submission of the report to the Vatican.”  Source

Comment…

Well.. will Catholic Irish eyes be smiling at the end of this ad limina d’ye think, at all, at all? 

Cardinals Join Battle With Pope Francis

Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action

Posted by Edward Pentin on Tuesday Nov 15th, 2016 at 11:25 AM
In an exclusive Register interview, [Cardinal Burke] elaborates about why four cardinals were impelled to seek clarity about the papal exhortation’s controversial elements.

Four cardinals asked Pope Francis five dubia questions, or “doubts,” about the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in a bid to clear up ambiguities and confusion surrounding the text. On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.

Cardinal Burke

Cardinal Burke

In this exclusive interview with the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explains in more detail the cardinals’ aims; why the publication of their letter should be seen as an act of charity, unity and pastoral concern, rather than as a political action; and what the next steps will be, if the Holy Father continues to refuse to respond.

Your Eminence, what do you aim to achieve by this initiative?

The initiative is aimed at one thing only, namely the good of the Church, which, right now, is suffering from a tremendous confusion on at least these five points. There are a number of other questions as well, but these five critical points have to do with irreformable moral principles. So we, as cardinals, judged it our responsibility to request a clarification with regard to these questions, in order to put an end to this spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error.


Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?

Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.

Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?

Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions. Even diocesan directives are confused and in error. We have one set of directives in one diocese; for instance, saying that priests are free in the confessional, if they judge it necessary, to permit a person who is living in an adulterous union and continues to do so to have access to the sacraments — whereas, in another diocese, in accord with what the Church’s practice has always been, a priest is able to grant such permission to those who make the firm purpose of amendment to live chastely within a marriage, namely as brother and sister, and to only receive the sacraments in a place where there would be no question of scandal. This really has to be addressed. But then there are the further questions in the dubia apart from that particular question of the divorced and remarried, which deal with the term “instrinsic evil,” with the state of sin and with the correct notion of conscience.

Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching in Amoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?

Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.

Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?

Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”

It’s a pastoral duty?

That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.

And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?

Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.

Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?

Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.

Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?

Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.

What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?

Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.

In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?

What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”

If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?

It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.

Comment:

Some commentators may argue that the Cardinals’ action will have little to no effect, that things will continue apace.  But IS this an historic moment in the life of the Church? Might this conscientious challenge by the four Cardinals, mark a turning point in the current, worsening crisis?  What about the papolatrists? How do they reconcile their false belief that the pope – any pope – is beyond criticism, with the impending public correction of Pope Francis by a number of  Princes of the Church?  How do they square that circle? Maybe we should ask Michael Voris! 

USA Election – Exposed: Hillary’s Subversive Activity Against Vatican…

Hillary Clinton & John Podesta

Hillary Clinton & John Podesta

Adrienne – a visitor to our site from Destin, FLorida – writes: “I’m deeply concerned by the anti-Church activity of our brother in Christ John Podesta and his friends. It is even more dangerous than their support for abortion and same-sex marriages, by itself. And I don’t want this issue to be talked round and forgotten.

I’d be very glad if you could publish my piece, because the mood of ordinary believers is quite an important thing that unfortunately haven’t been properly covered by our media.”

Clinton against the Vatican. Will the Holy See withstand?

According to the e-mails published by Wikileaks on October the 8th, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chief John Podesta is the most influential man in Soros’s war against the Vatican. Having close financial ties between them, both the “left” billionaire and the Democratic Party leadership are in favor of legal widely available and federally funded abortions as well as of full public acceptance of same-sex marriage. At the same time, the Catholic Church (to which almost every third American and about 40% of immigrants belong) remains committed to traditional values. Therefore, despite theologically enacted nonpolitical nature of the Catholic Social Doctrine, the Church’s voice is inevitably a hindrance for both: Soros and the Democrats.

So, in February 2012, the Democrats were eager to gain support for their Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, that required contraceptives and abortion costs to be included in the health insurance plans (and a refusal to fund birth control measures was labeled as “gender discrimination”). Hence, the president of the Voices for Progress, Sanford Newman wrote an e-mail to the Center for American Progress (CAP) founder, a longtime Democratic Party lobbyist John Podesta. Newman asked his opinion on the feasibility and possible ways of preparing the “Catholic Spring”. According to the Voices for Progress chief’s idea, it was necessary to somehow “plant the seeds of revolution” within the Catholic Church, so that the believers themselves would “demand their bishops to end a middle ages dictatorship” and better respect equality of the sexes. As a Jew, Newman recognized that he wasn’t familiar enough with Christianity, and carefully posed his offerings as hypothetical. However, John Podesta said bluntly that Catholics in Alliance with the Common Good (CACG) and Catholics United (CU) had already been created exactly for this purpose. He also complained about the lack of leadership and recommended that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend be consulted on this effort.

Indeed, since 2005 when these NGOs were established, they have been financed by the Soros Foundation and the Open Society Institute, either directly or through intermediary entities controlled by the progressive billionaire’s organizations. In their turn, CACG’s founder Tom Periello and its Chairman Fred Rotondaro are senior fellows at the Soros-funded CAP established by Podesta.

Criticism toward CACG and CU, who advocate the ordination of women and vindicate abortion and sodomy, has been heard since 2007. In 2008, Archbishop Charles Chaput stated that these organizations were compromising the Church. He also said that before the 2008 presidential elections two CU representatives had been accusing the Catholic Church of supporting Republicans and had been trying to urge him [Archbishop Chaput] to stop condemning abortions. In addition, Catholics United, which has nothing to do with the Church, was critical of the bishops who denied Communion to politicians who supported the legalization of abortion. Another critic of these liberal NGOs, Catholic League president William (Bill) Donohue also recalled how Chris Korzen, the CU Director at that time, tried to have him booted from CNN. In turn, CACG has been organizing events for liberal Catholic priests and lay people throughout the country. As a result of this manipulation, a misguided impression that Soros and Democratic Party’s initiatives were consistent with Christian theology was created. Thus, recently revealed correspondence has only confirmed pre-existing assumptions about the involvement of Hillary’s inner circle in the subversive activity against the Vatican.

It should be noted that the John Podesta’s attitude toward Catholics is not an exception but a norm for his party. For example, among the Hillary’s campaign Chairman’s emails one more derisive conversation was found. And it was between the current HRC director of communications Jennifer Palmieri and former Democratic chief strategist, CAP senior fellow John Halpin. The aforementioned Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has also claimed that the teaching of the Catholic Church encouraged “bigotry and harm”.

The U.S. Catholic community has met the attempts to distort the teachings of the Church, as well as politicians’ efforts to interfere with its affairs, with harsh criticism. President of the USCCB, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz stressed that such actions might appear to be “troubling both for the well-being of faith communities and the good of our country…Catholic beliefs had come to us from Jesus, not a consensus forged by contemporary norms ” Catholic League President Bill Donoghue advised the Democratic candidate for US president to dismiss her campaign Chief John Podesta. In his turn, president of the CatholicVote.org Brian Burch called for the resignation of Jennifer Palmieri and reminded us how Hillary Clinton herself had referred to conservatives as “basket of deplorables”. However, the Holy See hasn’t commented, yet, on the subversive efforts of Clinton’s team. 

Will St. Peter’s successor defend the right of believers to live in accordance with Christ’s commandments and protect the Church’s teachings from the encroachment of politicians? Is Pope Francis to put in their place the representatives of the American financial and political elite trampling on religious freedom in the eyes of the world? According to my American Catholic acquaintances, it depends from whence the Pope’s benevolence and concern for the poor originate: Marxism or the Lord’s commandments. The response of His Holiness, as well as its absence, will show what he is to a greater extent: Catholic or “leftist” – they say.

Comments invited – not least from our American Catholic brothers and sisters, out there. Are any of you seriously thinking of casting your vote for … that [anti-Catholic ] woman? 

Africa Rejects LGBT Propaganda

animated-nigeria-flag-image-0010small

 


“Mass Resistance” is a pro-family group fighting the LGBT propaganda machine in the USA.

Below, a very interesting report on their work in Africa, where, so far, the people are rejecting the push for “gay” rights…

From Mass Resistance…

“Much of the major conflict in the world over LGBT “rights” is now taking place in central Africa.

Here in the US, the church’s influence on the “culture war” is breaking down and has caused considerable confusion. But the Africans are VERY clear-headed on these issues.
They get it. In countries such as Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, people are very aware of the destruction that widespread homosexual behavior brings to society and especially to children.” Click here to read more… 

Comment:

Why are the African people so clear headed about the issue of homosexual “rights”?  How come they “get it” where the rest of the world, more or less, has fallen, hook, line and sinker for the propaganda?  What can we learn from the African success, to date, in fending off the powerful LGBT lobby? 

American Editors Accuse Pope Francis

Your Holiness:

The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.  PopeFrancispensivecropped

You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per se without exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bi-millenial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition. [from Part 1]

Click here to read all three parts of the Letter & Liber of Accusation at Catholic Family News. The page opens at Part III, with links to Parts 1 & 11.

 

Comments invited