The following email from an Edinburgh reader arrived in my inbox this morning, and after due consultation, I have been granted permission to publish it: the names of the parents have been withheld.
Email from Edward (not his real name)
Can I ask you all to pray for [names withheld] who attend the SSPX chapel in Edinburgh? They have a meeting tomorrow with the Social Services who are trying to take their children into care. Apparently when one of the children walked into a tree and grazed herself someone reported them to the Social Services who accused [the child’s father] of causing the cut.
They are now bringing the SSPX into the case claiming that [the parents] belong to a sect which is not recognised by the Catholic Church and “which holds many contentious points of view, including anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, among many other things.” The Social Work Manager claims that the children are “being exposed to controversial views preached at the church.”
[The father] has often complained to St. Mary’s school in Leith about certain things being taught in the school which were contrary to Catholic teaching and is obviously regarded as a troublemaker. I suspect that it is the school who have contacted the Social Services.
Please pray that all will go well for them tomorrow. Ends
In a subsequent email, “Edward” disclosed the fact that the Archbishop has shown himself to have “no problem with the SSPX” and so those involved in trying to help the parents are confident that he will agree to help the family by explaining that the Society is not a sect, and that anyone regularly attending the chapel will affirm that the allegations of anti-Semitism, holocaust-denial and the like in preaching at the chapel, are totally without foundation.
Note: the dual purpose of this thread…
1) to seek prayers for this family, for all the spiritual sustenance necessary to withstand this intrusive attack on their family life, with the attendant anxiety and worry.
2) to highlight the dangers for parents of pupils in the Catholic education system, if they seek to question any materials or content which they consider is contrary to Catholic teaching. No “dialogue”, no “parental involvement” allowed here…
On the contrary, “Liberal tyranny” is alive and well and working hard here in Scotland, for all the world to see. From the sinister Government Named Person Scheme, a spy in every home, for every child, before and after birth, until the child’s 18th birthday, to the equally sinister persecution by pseudo-experts of parents who dare to insist on an authentic Catholic education for the children they have chosen to send to a Catholic school. At least, in this case, it seems that the Archbishop is seeking to be fair and there has been a move to put the family in touch with a Canon Lawyer, so we must give all credit to the archdiocese on this occasion. Let’s pray that they are minded to help this family to achieve justice.
Pray for this family – and share your thoughts on the sheer audacity of that person or persons who think nothing of lying, blatantly, in order to undermine parental rights, Catholic family life, and the reputation of the priestly Society of Saint Pius X.
PHILADELPHIA (CNS) — Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput is asking Pope Francis to call off the Synod of Bishops on young people this October to focus instead on the life of the bishops.
“I have written the Holy Father and called on him to cancel the upcoming synod on young people. Right now, the bishops would have absolutely no credibility in addressing this topic,” the archbishop said at an Aug. 30 conference at Philadelphia’s St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, according to a report by the website LifeSiteNews.
In its place, the archbishop suggested that the pope “begin making plans for a synod on the life of bishops,” the archbishop said.
Ken Gavin, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, confirmed the archbishop sent the letter to the pope, but he offered no additional comments.
The archbishop gave his comments about canceling the synod during a panel discussion called the “Cardinals’ Forum,” sponsored by the Cardinal John Foley Chair of Social Communications and Homiletics and the Cardinal John Krol Chair of Moral Theology, both at the seminary.
The archbishop, who is set to participate in the synod on youth, was one of three panelists speaking on the topic “Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment,” the theme of the Oct. 3-28 synod in Rome.
Hundreds of bishops and young people representing youth from across the globe will engage in discussions at that meeting and typically, the pope attends some synod conferences. After the gathering’s conclusion, the bishops make recommendations to advise the pope as he formulates pastoral policy to address the specific issues discussed.
Pope Francis had previously confirmed Archbishop Chaput, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as one of only five American bishops to attend the synod, all of whom were elected by their peers in the USCCB.
The other church leaders planning to attend are: Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, USCCB president; Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, USCCB vice president; Bishop Frank J. Caggiano of Bridgeport, Connecticut, a member of the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; and Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Robert E. Barron, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis.
Calls for reform in the Catholic hierarchy have risen throughout the summer as the clergy sexual abuse scandal has intensified, with bishops across the globe coming under scrutiny for their potential role in covering up cases of abuse of children and young adults.
And confidence in the credibility of Catholic bishops has been eroding in the wake of allegations against the former Washington Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, the Pennsylvania grand jury report on 70 years of clergy child sexual abuse in the state and the explosive letter of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former U.S. papal nuncio, alleging the cover-up of Archbishop McCarrick’s abuse by bishops in the United States and in the Vatican.
In an Aug. 30 letter to the pope, Dallas Bishop Edward J. Burns asked for an extraordinary synod to address issues in the latest Catholic clergy sex abuse crisis.
“The current crisis of sexual abuse by clergy, the cover-up by leaders in the church and the lack of fidelity of some have caused great harm,” the letter said. It suggests that this synod should include topics such as “the care and the safeguard of children and the vulnerable, outreach to victims, the identity and lifestyle of the clergy, the importance of healthy human formation within the presbyterate/religious community, etc.” Source
Even the pro-Francis La Nación (July 30) points out that this is “political-ideological” without “thoroughness of procedures”.
Angelelli had proven contacts to the terrorist organisation Montoneros, the leftist branch of the Socialist Peronist revolution movement.
He brought Marxism to the Argentinian Church and supported Liberation Theology. In Argentina “Angel-elli” was also known as “Satan-elli”.
He died in a car accident. The first police report concluded based on the autopsy, witnesses and experts that the incident was due to a mechanical malfunction of the vehicle.
A later constructed theory that it was murder could never be proven. According to this theory the government ordered an intentional manoeuvre by a vehicle that was following Angelelli provoking this way a rollover of Angelelli’s car.
Even if this theory were true, then Angelelli would have been murdered for the sake of Marxism, not for the sake of the Faith. Source
Pope Francis appears to have no regard for anything Catholic – neither Catholic dogma, discipline, established rules and procedures – nothing. To my way of thinking, he is, increasingly, bringing the Church into disrepute. What about your way of thinking?
Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Answered,
Preaching “Hate Speech” is the first of our Catholic Conversation videos which will be posted from time to time, with commentary on a variety of topics, presented in interview format. In the above video, Patricia McKeever, Editor is interviewed.
What was black is now white: Pope “changes Catechism” to declare death penalty “inadmissible in all cases”.
The Church was wrong in a major issue literally of life and death.
Is the Pope a kind of “Prophet”, as the “First President” of the Mormons, receiving new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times?
That is what seems to come from the “alteration” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992 promoted by the current Pope and published today:
The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in an audience granted on May 11, 2018, to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordering its translation in the various languages and inserted in all editions of the mentioned Catechism:
The death penalty
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
 Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.
The anachronistic boldness in this decision is astounding: what is merely a modern view of a secularized Europe becomes a completely new teaching, without even the consideration that the current situation of the world will remain the same for all time — as if the secular European present of stable peace would remain forever the same, as if what was common in the past and since the dawn of time would never be possible anymore. The boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented “teaching” of the Church.
If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself in Scripture — when, confronted by Pilate who affirmed his right to inflict capital punishment, told him, “You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above”, affirming that it is a power granted to the State in its authority, even if, as all governmental powers, it can be exercised illegitimately and unjustly — can be changed, then anything can be changed. A “development” of doctrine may bring about anything: from the end of the “intrinsic disordered” nature of homosexuality to the priestly ordination of women, from the possibility of contraception in “some” cases to the acceptance of the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a possible interpretation of what the Church has always believed — and so on.
The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views. [Ed: emphasis added]
We are reaping the rewards of an unchecked hyper-clericalism: the same hyper-clericalism that allowed for abuses of people like Theodore McCarrick to go ignored and unpunished and now allows for the recklessness of the alteration of established doctrine received from Christ and the Apostles. Ends.
Update: If it were possible to have an even more ridiculous excuse for this change, it comes from the “Letter to Bishops” by Cardinal Ladaria, the CDF prefect:
10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.
That is absolutely ridiculous, and a shameful and pathetic excuse: the Catechism is not a lobbying tool to modify laws: it is supposed to be a collection of the everlasting teachings of the Church. Source – Rorate Caeli
What should happen now? Is there anything that the rest of the upper hierarchy can do? What about Catholics in the USA and other countries where the death penalty is permitted – are they now duty bound to work for its elimination? Do they commit a sin if they refuse to do so and, instead, adhere to the traditional belief that the State is permitted to use the death penalty in certain cases? If it’s a sin, at what level? Venial? Mortal? What then? And what about other teachings in the Catechism? Do we watch, even more closely, for this Pope’s personal opinion on this or that issue, in order to prepare ourselves for the next new teaching?
“The pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church is not a pedophile scandal. The vast majority of victims are post-pubescent teens and young men. The real problem in the Church that everyone sees and few will say out loud: gay priests.” (Matt Walsh, Twitter)
I’m taking some heat on Twitter today because I said that the real problem in the Catholic Church isn’t pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles. The same study that reported those figures did try to absolve gay priests by claiming that their homosexuality had nothing to do with anything. But this is an assumption — I think a plainly absurd and unprovable assumption — that is not born out by their own statistics.
And the problem goes beyond sex abuse of minors. As Rod Dreher has been reporting, and liberal publications agree, homosexuality runs rampant in the modern priesthood. Sexual activity between priests, and between priests and seminarians, is not uncommon. I think it is rather difficult to separate these facts from the fact that teen boys were so often sexually victimized. Is it just a coincidence that gay priests exist in such large numbers, protected by gay cabals within the Church, and at the same time there happen to be a bunch of priests molesting pubescent boys? Are these two realities entirely separate from one another?
Take the case of the scummy Cardinal McCarrick. He has been accused of preying upon young boys. But most of the stories that have come out about him revolve around his sexual exploits with seminarians. Grown men, in other words. Yet we are told that the fact of his homosexuality is irrelevant. How could it be? If he were not a homosexual, he would not have molested boys. Who could dispute this? I’m not claiming that all homosexuals molest boys. I am claiming that only homosexuals molest boys. A non-homosexual, by definition, is not attracted to males.
I will be told that sex abuse is about “power” not sex, but of course this is ridiculous. It is about both. If all you seek is power over someone, there are other ways to achieve that aim without sexually assaulting them. If you choose sex as your means, then it would follow that you are sexually attracted to your victim.
80% of the victims in the Church have been males. Is it difficult to see how thousands of boys may have been spared this experience if there had not been so many homosexuals in the priesthood? Or are we going to pretend that even a heterosexual may attempt to get his thrills by molesting a 15 year old boy? If so, I have no idea what the words heterosexual and homosexual mean anymore.
I have been accused of focusing on this issue because it implicates gays while ignoring abuse perpetrated by heterosexuals. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I have written extensively about the epidemic of (mostly heterosexual) abuse in the public school system. There is very little public interest in this problem, and I have not been able to generate much through my own efforts, but not for lack of trying. As I have observed, it is probably not a great idea to have women in their 20’s teaching teenaged boys, just as it is not ideal to have men in their 20’s teaching teenaged girls. We may not always have much of a choice, but the problems inherent in such an arrangement are apparent.
In a similar way, it is not a good idea to have homosexual men living together in rectories and seminaries, and working closely with teen boys. This is not a homophobic theory I am positing. It is an observation I am making based on 50 years worth of data. It is nothing but moral cowardice to refuse to face the facts. Source – The Daily Wire
Given the above facts, the criteria already set out by the Vatican document Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961) which contains the following warning, is worth noting: Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This prohibition on ordaining homosexuals is repeated in 2005 here so, there can be no possible justification for seminaries to continue accepting and ordaining homosexual men,: “… the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”. Source
Or, must we ignore the facts, and opt for political correctness to “move with the [ever-changing] – and ever-more sexually permissive – times”?