Andrew Greeley says Catholics CAN vote for Kerry

The matter is settled!  Fr. Andrew Greeley has written:

Catholics can vote for John Kerry. They don't have to, but it would not be a sin to do so, according to a distinguished theologian [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who wrote:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

But that's not all, he then slams all bishops who follow the directives of the Holy Father and the law of the Church:

This theory of "indirect material cooperation" is traditional Catholic moral teaching. Apparently, the few bishops who excluded Catholics from communion if they voted for Kerry didn't know much traditional moral theology -- which demonstrates what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.

It is difficult to express sufficient gratitude to Andrew Greeley for giving us the teachings of his 'church'. Under Greeley's moral umbrella, one is at liberty to vote for Kerry or any other supporter of baby killing for ANY REASON whatsoever except that of supporting abortion! It's all so clear now. Why didn't Pope John Paul and the Bishops just state this years ago?

This does bring up some questions, however. May one rightly conclude from his article that one may ignore any and all directives from one's lawful bishop if the bishop's statement is contrary to Greeley's "Bulla"?

Is it possible that Archbishop Burke's forthcoming Pastoral Letter will confirm Greeley's erudite theological conclusions?  (No, I don't think so)

Perhaps some now-enlightened Catholic voters will send a few letters requesting clarification of these obvious unCatholic voting principles to Cardinal George just to be sure?

Dear Lord, thank you for sending us people like Greeley so that we may test and exercise our virtues!

Full Chicago Sun-Times Article here. There's much more than I addressed.

Discussion continues on pols, Communion

WASHINGTON (CNS) — In a scene that may be repeated across the country as U.S. bishops take their own advice to talk with Catholic politicians about abortion, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis met with a U.S. congressman from Missouri July 12.

Archdiocesan spokesman Jim Orso said the Archbishop’s half-hour meeting with Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, took place in the congressman’s St. Louis office. Because it was a "pastoral meeting," Orso added, both parties agreed not to make any public comment about it.

Clay, who is Catholic and has supported legislation backing abortion rights, criticized Archbishop Burke several weeks ago after the Archbishop stated that Catholics commit a mortal sin by voting for politicians that support abortion. Clay also was among some Democratic congressmen who wrote to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., complaining of bishops who have said they would deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic legislators.

Archbishop Burke, who will issue a pastoral letter on the voting issue, said he wasn’t stating anything new but reiterating Church teaching and Pope John Paul II’s writings about proper reception of the Eucharist. In his statement three weeks ago, the Archbishop did not name candidates or political parties.

From the St. Louis Review

Archbishop Burke: Amendment No. 2 and safeguarding the sanctity of marriage

Sanctity of marriage

The truth regarding marriage is written in human nature as it issued from the hand of God at Creation. From the study of human nature, it is clear that God has made man and woman for each other, in order to provide for them a faithful and lasting relationship of love and to provide for the procreation, that is creation with Him, of offspring. By marriage, a man and a woman promise faithful and enduring love, giving to each other, exclusively and for life, the right to the conjugal act by which married love is blessed with its highest fruit, the conception of a child.
...
Respect for the sanctity of marriage requires that we do all within our power to safeguard its essential elements, so that marriage can serve the good of all in society, as it alone can. Respect for the sanctity of marriage means the recognition of God’s plan for marriage and the rejection of any intervention by ourselves which violates God’s plan.

Marriage and same-sex attraction

The present need to define clearly the nature of marriage arises from the efforts of persons with same-sex attraction and others, who wish to have same-sex relationships recognized as marital. In other words, they wish civil authority to recognize as marriage the relationship of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. To do so would be to treat marriage as an institution created by man, instead of God, and to violate what nature itself teaches us about the marital relationship.

Same-sex attraction, that is "an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex" may have various causes, but it cannot be attributed to God’s plan for man and woman, as it is clearly revealed in their bodies and in the Sacred Scriptures (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357). Persons suffering from same-sex attraction are endowed with the same dignity as every man and woman, and, therefore, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358). But, accepting each other with respect does not mean failing to recognize our disordered tendencies and defects.

Respecting individuals who suffer same-sex attraction means honoring their call to lead a chaste life, a call which is inherent in our dignity as sons and daughters of God. It would be wrong, on our part as individuals and on the part of society, to give institutional recognition to same-sex relationships by giving them the status of the marital relationship. Rather, we, as individuals, and society, in general, should assist persons with same-sex attraction to lead a good and chaste life by recognizing their same-sex attraction as disordered and disciplining it, so that the inclination does not express itself in immoral actions and the affections of the individual are purified and express themselves in good and chaste friendships.

The protection of the institution of marriage by means of a constitutional amendment is not discriminatory toward persons with same-sex attraction. It does not offend their dignity or foster any unjust attitude or action toward them. It simply provides assurance that all in society will respect the true nature of marriage as the foundation of the life of the family, of society and of the Church. As Catholics, we must respect the moral law in all of its dictates, opposing homosexual acts and opposing any unjust attitude, word or action directed toward persons suffering with same-sex attraction.

There is a tendency to accept same-sex relationships because we do not want to deal with the embarrassment and hurt of recognizing same-sex attraction as disordered. We find various excuses for failing to address a matter which lies at the foundation of our nature as man and woman. As with any anomaly or affliction in life, our human weakness leads us to pretend that it does not exist or to act as if it were other than a difficulty. By giving in to the tendency or temptation to treat same-sex attraction as equivalent to the attraction of man to woman and woman to man, we serve neither the good of persons who struggle with same-sex attraction nor the good of the family and of society. The fact that our American culture more and more fails to make any distinction between same-sex attraction and heterosexual attraction does not justify our failure to make the distinction, respecting God’s gift of human life in its integrity and helping others to attain the perfection to which we are called as true children of God.

Conclusion

Once again, I urge you to fulfill your civic responsibility on Aug. 3. Please vote in favor of Constitutional Amendment No. 2, so the institution of marriage may be safeguarded in its integrity. Also, please encourage and assist others to vote. The good of individuals and of society depends upon our safeguarding the sanctity of marriage as it has been given to us by God.

St Louis Review Article

Alarm in Italy as growth of Satanism creates “market” for consecrated hosts

ROME, Italy, Jul. 15, 2004 (CNA) - Fr. Aldo Buonaiuto, director of an “emergency help line” that assists young people wanting to get out of satanic cults, expressed alarm this week at the growth of Satanism, which has created a “market” for consecrated hosts in Italy.

In statements published in the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Fr. Buonaiuto explained that “a proliferation of cults exists which practice black masses, with the profanation of consecrated hosts, rape and torture.”

“We know of cases of consensual vampirism, and also the assaulting of young people who have been drugged in the course of ritualistic orgies.”

According to Fr. Buonaiuto, “A true ‘market’ for consecrated hosts exists. They sell for 80-500 euros, depending on the size of the host, the prominence of the church from which they were stolen, and who consecrated them.”

“The highest price is placed on those that are consecrated in the churches of Rome, above all those closest to the Vatican. They are stolen in two ways: from the tabernacle, but also at the time of Holy Communion,” he said.

“Some cults perform rituals with the consecrated hosts while under the influence of LSD or cocaine, led frequently by ex-priests who have offered themselves in the service of Satan,” he told Famiglia Cristiana.

According to Fr. Buonaiuto, the proliferation of these cults is very much connected with “the loss of the sense of the sacred.” “Man needs to fill himself with something, and today the market is full of superficial alternatives, among them, Satanism,” he concluded.

All Rights reserved. Catholic News Agency 2003

St Vincent de Paul: We’re not part of Portland Archdiocese

St. Vincent de Paul fears its fund-raising drive could be harmed by the Chapter 11 filing on behalf of the Catholic Church in Portland

Article.

Bishops back constitutional challenge to California sex abuse law

California's Catholic bishops have endorsed a constitutional challenge by the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, and the Los Angeles Archdiocese to a California law that temporarily suspended the time limit on seeking civil damages in decades-old sexual abuse cases.

The bishops said they agree with arguments that the 2002 law, SB 1779, sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Burton of San Francisco, violates the ex post facto, due process and bill of attainder clauses of the U.S. Constitution. (emphasis mine)

Do schools still teach "Civics" or a similar type class where students actually learn about "ex post facto", "due process" and "bill of attainder" or even the U.S. Constitution?

CNS Article

The Church Teaches Forum for 2004

Special Notice for those in the area or for those who have the weekend free:

The 2004 CHURCH TEACHES FORUM will be held on July 16th & 17th at the GALT HOUSE (4th Avenue & The River) in Louisville, Ky.

The Theme for this year's forum:
The Role of the Laity in the Modern World

One purpose of the Forum is to help Catholics understand their faith and to realize the grave crisis through which the Church is oing. Pleas, at this point read Fr. Hardon's words, and then be firmly resolved to support the Forum."

"The crisis of faith today is the worst in the entire history of Christianity...Unless we recover the zeal and the spirit of the first century Christians, unless we are willing to do what they did - and to pay the price that they paid, the future of our country, the days of Amrerica are numbered." (Fr. John A. Hardon)

Scheduled Speakers are:
Edouard Cardinal GagnonPresident emeritus of the Pontifical Council for the Family

Archbishop Raymond L BurkeArchbishop of St. Louis installed in St. Louis on January 26, 2004, the fifth anniversary of Pope John Paul II's historic pastoral visit to the archdiocese.

Rev. Abbot Edmund McCaffreyFormer Abbot Ordinary of Belmont Abbey in North Carolina. A founder and Vice President of The Institute on Religious Life.

Rev Roger Arnsparger Pastor, St. Barnabas Parish, Arden, NC

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, will give the Keynote Address tonight: The Role of the Laity in the Culture of Death

More information at Eternal Life or call 800-842-2871.

The Seven Capital Vices of the Movements, According to “La Civiltà Cattolica”

Three “dangers” and four “challenges”: through the magazine of the Rome Jesuits, the Vatican makes a critical appraisal of the movements. A warning for the Neocatechumenal Way, Focolare, Sant’Egidio, and Bose.
by Sandro Magister

ROMA – With John Paul II, the communities and movements that have arisen within the Catholic Church during the past few decades have enjoyed a mild climate, wrapped up in the friendship of the pope. But shadows gather where light shines. A recent editorial in “La Civiltà Cattolica” listed the “dangers” and “challenges” posed to the Church by many of these movements.

The editorial – dated June 19, 2004, entitled “The ecclesial movements today,” and signed by Jesuit Fr. Giuseppe De Rosa – is all the more important insofar as it was reviewed and authorized before printing by the Vatican secretariat of state, as is the rule for every edition of “La Civiltà Cattolica.” Reading it is like glancing over a reminder note, not for the use of the current pontificate, but for that of the next, with a list of unresolved questions. And the answers must be found.

In making a survey of the “dangers” and “challenges” posed by the movements, the magazine does not mention names. But it’s not difficult for the experts to identify the institutes under criticism, point by point.

Full Article here.

German Cardinal Slammed by Colleague for Fostering Dissent

Breaking with the custom of diplomacy, a German cardinal has made some blunt accusations in a public forum against another leading German prelate. Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Archbishop of Cologne, known for his "conservative" views, has accused his colleague, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the Archbishop of Mainz of promoting a leftist, liberalized view of the Catholic faith according to England's Catholic magazine, The Tablet.

Dissident and so-called "liberal" theologians have been extending their reach within European Roman Catholic circles openly for forty years. The movement has created a crippling divide in what was once seen to be a unified Catholic voice on issues such as abortion, contraception and divorce.

Cardinal Lehman is considered one of the most "liberal" of the German Catholic hierarchy. He was one of the bishops who fought for years with the Vatican over their issuance of abortion counselling certificates which allowed women to obtain government-funded abortions. Decisive action had to be taken by Church authorities to put an end to the practice.

Full article-Lifesite

Why the Church Restricts Access to Communion

That the Church normally restricts access to holy Communion to Catholics, who must fulfill certain conditions, has become a debated issue in some sectors.
 
Some Catholics do not even know why the Church maintains this custom, which dates back to the early Christian communities.
 
To answer the question, ZENIT interviewed Father Philip Goyret, professor of sacramental theology, ecclesiology and ecumenism at the University of the Holy Cross. Father Goyret is also the pontifical university's director of studies.

Every Catholic should be able to at least understand the answers given to following question:

Q: What is the theological and ecclesiological significance of someone receiving Communion?

And every priest should be able to answer it and explain the answer sufficiently to the faithful.

Now the following is an excerpt of the full article.

Q: Denying Communion, whether to Catholics or in some cases even to Protestants, is criticized as being a divisive measure. What is your opinion?

Father Goyret: To understand this, suffice it to develop the foregoing last lines.

Ecclesial communion as an antecedent condition to access Eucharistic Communion consists, substantially, in the integrity of faith and absence of grave sin. From the Catholic point of view, the first includes, logically, to be a Catholic.

It also implies the absence of situations of habitual sin -- family irregularities, ideological positions that are incompatible with the Catholic faith, professional conduct opposed to Catholic morality, etc. -- in addition to occasional sins.

The moral and pastoral norm followed by priests when distributing Communion is to deny it publicly to those who are publicly known as persons who cannot receive it. To proceed otherwise would mean to cast aside the theological and ecclesiological meaning of which we spoke earlier.

For Catholics, the eventual distribution of Communion to a non-Catholic, within a Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, implies a contradiction, as it would imply an ecclesial communion that does not exist in its fullness. Something similar occurs in the case of the eventual Communion of a public sinner.

Obviously, these ideas presuppose a strong affirmation in faith in the Eucharist -- not as a mere external manifestation of a generic feeling of Christian fraternity, but as the sacrament that truly contains the whole Christ, with his body, blood, soul and divinity.

It is important to see that the necessity of full unity of the faith among the participants in the Eucharist is something exacted by the specific content of this sacrament, namely the substantial reality of the body of Christ -- because in it is necessarily implied faith in everything that Christ has revealed and that the Church teaches.

Therefore, Eucharistic Communion and communion in truth cannot be separated. In this line, the Catholic Church denies Eucharistic Communion to those who do not participate fully of its ecclesial communion, as they cannot participate in the sign of full unity who do not possess it wholly.

In short, according to the Catholic point of view, access to Eucharistic Communion without full ecclesial communion is, first of all, an absurd action, as it does not realize the significant aspect characteristic of the sacramental dynamics; and by not signifying this, it does not cause it either.

It must be added that the desire and spiritual need to receive Communion is something profoundly personal, but never a "private" event, precisely because we are before an ecclesial good -- ecclesial par excellence -- of which we are not the owners.

Not to respect this discipline is not only a contradiction in the one who goes to Communion, but also in the whole ecclesial community.

One last question is this one:
Q: What are the key considerations that bishops are grappling with regarding the debates? What is the bishops' primary concern over the Communion debate?

Zenit Article

Michael Rose: The Catholic Church's Abu Ghraib

Here's more information on the sickening scandal from Austria.

Photos are the key
Homosexual sex scandals are, regrettably, nothing new to Catholic seminaries. Denial, avoidance and cover-up are also old hat in these same circles. If it wasn’t for an unnamed 33-year-old Polish-born priest who took photos of the misdeeds with his compact digital camera, there would have been no resignations, no calls for an investigation, no emergency meetings. There would only have been the characteristic obfuscation and denials on the part of Church leaders. Conservative Catholics would have defended the priests and bishop, calling the accusations false and vilifying the whistleblowers as psychologically unfit. At the same time, liberal Catholics would have dismissed the accusations of homosexual revelry as the product of an overactive conservative imagination. Or they may have simply ignored the whole issue.

Despite the fact that certain seminaries became widely known by nicknames such as The Pink Palace, Notre Flame, and the Faggot Factory, seminary rectors and bishops could think of nothing more original than to deny that anything was wrong, calling the charges scurrilous and groundless. Nothing less than compromising photos published in Newsweek would have made them eat their words.

Article here.

Peru's cardinal says he is victim of smear campaign

I am reluctant to post an article from the National Catholic Distorter, but, as they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally...

Anyway, something is going on here, perhaps in an attaempt to discredit Opus Dei. And many, including some at the Vatican, for some reason, want this "swept under the rug".

When a civil investigation now underway is finished, Peru's Opus Dei cardinal believes it will demonstrate that a remarkable, if rather inept, "dirty tricks" campaign against him was orchestrated by elements within the Catholic church, including some of his fellow Peruvian bishops.

Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani, generally seen as an arch-conservative, also says that if the truth does come out, it will be despite Vatican pressure to sweep matters under the rug.

Fake letters have not been the only crisis for Cipriani, who is lightning rod for controversy in Peru.

In recent months, he has been publicly accused of involvement in the "assassination" of his predecessor, Cardinal Augusto Vargas, even though most observers believe that Vargas died of a cerebral hemorrhage. Cipriani was also linked in press accounts to a famous massacre of teachers during the years of Shining Path terrorism in Peru, another charge he has vociferously denied.

"It's one lie after another, for 16 years," Cipriani said. "Many of these lies come from inside [the church], not from outside. For me this really hurts."

Some of us can understand immediately what's going on - there are two strikes against him right off the bat - he's "conservative" and a member of Opus Dei, the "watchdogs" for the Holy Father...The good Lord must be watching over him and taking care of him - he is still alive!

Article here.

Update on Heresy Case against John Kerry

This is from Pete Vere, JCL:

A number of you asked me how you can go about helping Marc Balestrieri in his canonical effort to combat the alleged pro-choice heresy espoused by Catholic politicians such as John Kerry. In fact, Al Matt asked me to answer this very question for his readers when I asked him last Wednesday whether I could cover this story in my regular monthly column for the Wanderer.

With this in mind, here's a sneak peak at the rough draft of the column I hope to submit. It is written in three parts. The first part is basically a summary of what I've already blogged on this subject, while the second part offers a basic explanation of why I maintain the pro-choice position to be heretical according to the clear teaching of the Catholic Church. Finally, the third part outlines three basic actions every Catholic can do to support Marc in his canonical petition.

Full article here.

Pro-Life Walkers Ask Philadelphia Archdiocese: 'Where's the Brotherly Love?'

Undeterred by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's refusal to permit them to speak at area Masses, American Life League's Summer Crusade for Life walkers will arrive in Philadelphia this week. During their stay they will pray at local abortion mills, meet with Catholic public figures and speak to gatherings of faithful Catholics in their homes and other venues.

In a recent Philadelphia Inquirer article, Archdiocese spokesman Catherine Rossi said it would be "inappropriate" for the students to speak at masses. "There is nothing inappropriate about our message," said Kristen Rainey, Crusade walk spokesman and a student from the College of the Ozarks. "What is inappropriate is when our bishops, cardinals and priests turn a blind eye to the truth and allow pro-abortion 'Catholic' public figures to desecrate the Body of Christ by receiving Holy Communion unworthily."

This is strange...I would think that Cardinal Rigali would welcome these crusaders for life...

Article.

More on "Proportionate Reasons" and Cooperating with Evil

The moral guidance for this answer is found in an area called, "moral cooperation with evil." Here moral cooperation is when a person freely and knowingly assists another person in performing an immoral act, i.e. an action that is objectively evil. Such cooperation means that a person concurs in another’s sinful act, and participates in a way that helps bring the sinful act to completion. The Catechism teaches, "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."(#2287)

Now we come to some classic distinctions in morality. Formal cooperation is when a person (the cooperator) first of all gives consent to the evil action of another (the actor). Here the cooperator shares the same intention as the actor. The cooperator also joins in the actual performance of the evil action or supplies the actor with the means of performing it. Essentially, he consents to and helps enact the sin. For example, using the example of abortion, a nurse who assists a doctor in performing an abortion and shares the same intention is formally cooperating with evil. A legislator who actively promotes abortion legislation enabling innocent human beings to perish is guilty of formal cooperation with evil. Formal cooperation with evil is always wrong, and the cooperator shares in the guilt of the sin of the actor.

This is from an article By Fr. William P. Saunders, a Catholic Herald Columnist (From the issue of 9/5/02)

For more of the discussion, especially regarding remote and proximate material cooperation and for some guidance on the question, "Is there a proportionate reason for cooperating with this evil action?", see this article.

A primer on the Holy Communion controversy

by George Weigel

This is an article appearing in the Denver Catholic Register, the archdiocesan newspaper.

The debate over the reception of Holy Communion by Catholic politicians who persistently support permissive abortion laws continues. This debate is an opportunity for authentic Catholic reform, in our sacramental practice and our public witness. To help further that reform, let me take four crucial questions and suggest answers that track with the long-established teaching and discipline of the Church.

1. Who should examine their conscience during this debate?

2. Does supporting permissive abortion laws damage one's communion with the Church?

3. What are the local bishop's responsibilities toward Catholic politicians who support permissive abortion laws?

4. What about the many other issues involving the sanctity of life?

We should welcome this debate. It could get ugly. It could also lead to a renewed Church and a reformed America.

The response are in the complete article here.

What goes on in church should reflect its beliefs

A columnist in Richmond VA defends Bishop DiLorenzo and his policies of restoring orthodoxy to the diocese.

There are a couple of things worth remembering. Numero Uno is that church buildings are not public property. Nor are they town halls. There is no fundamental right of free speech inside them. Sorry.

As far as I know, nothing prevents Catholics from discussing anything they like outside of church. In fact, we’re nearly impossible to shut up. But what goes on inside ought to reflect the beliefs of that church. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Complete article here.

A Response to Archbishop Burke's July 4 article on Human Embryos

Archbishop Burke's article in Post has received a response:

Balance needed
in bioethics

In his July 4 commentary, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke articulated the reasoning behind the church's opposition to the use of cloned human embryos in stem-cell research. Although I agree with him that cloned human embryos deserve to be treated with some level of dignity, I can't unconditionally support his view of the embryo's "right to life."

I don't believe that the Scriptures (Christian or other) provide direct guidance regarding the status of artificially created and maintained life forms. The progress of biomedical research has taken our society to the point where it is no longer possible to utilize traditional sources of moral guidance.

To make matters worse, the pressure is rising to make a quick decision because of the mesmerizing potential of embryonic stem cells to cure devastating diseases. This dangling carrot of a potential utility has seduced many of our fellow Americans to suggest that the cloned human embryo has no claim to human dignity, and should be as disposable as the Petri dish they grow in.

As a researcher, when I work with human cancer cells, I have no qualms about destroying them during my experiment. I would hesitate to do this to a cloned human embryo.

Our generation is the first to face a seemingly insurmountable vacuum of moral certitude. Therefore, it is up to our generation to climb the Mount Zion of constructive, mindful, nationwide elaboration to develop sustainable moral standards to guide us through the dilemmas of bioethics.

The President's Council on Bioethics admirably called for a moratorium on the destruction of cloned human embryos, but much wider discussion is needed to make sure we do no harm while searching for cures. The inclusion of elected representatives (in the form of bipartisan congressional committees) would help to maintain a prudent balance of views.

Robert Kokenyesi
Kirkwood

This seemed to me to be the saddest commentary of all in this letter of Mr. Kokenyesi: "The progress of biomedical research has taken our society to the point where it is no longer possible to utilize traditional sources of moral guidance."

There are many who wish to discard objective truth, objective morality, for a "make it up as we go along" morality - a relativistic model which is devoid of common sense and rational thought.

Link here.

Christian Groups Say They Won't Give Up ... on FMA

The Federal Marriage Amendment's Religious Supporters See Long-Term Fight, Plan to Focus Energy on State-Level Votes

Despite a defeat in the Senate yesterday, evangelical Christian groups said they would continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but some predicted that it would be a 10-year battle.

I suspect that this fight is lost...During his talks in Denver for the World Youth Day in 1993, Pope John Paul II told the young people to “Pray that America might not lose its soul.”

There is a tremendous battle going on in the world and here, in the U.S., for souls. We need supernatural help in this war.

The Holy Father also said:

"Vast sectors of society are confused about what is right and what is wrong, and are at the mercy of those with the power to "create" opinion and impose it on others.

"The family especially is under attack. And the sacred character of human life denied. Naturally, the weakest members of society are the most at risk: the unborn children, the sick, the handicapped, the old, the poor and unemployed, the immigrant and refugee, the South of the world!

"At this stage of history, the liberating message of the Gospel of life has been put into your hands. And the mission of proclaiming it to the ends of the earth is now passing to your generation. Like the great apostle Paul, you too must feel the full urgency of the task: "Woe to me if I do not evangelize" (1 Cor. 9:16). Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending life. The church needs your energies, your enthusiasm, your youthful ideals, in order to make the Gospel of life penetrate the fabric of society, transforming people's hearts and the structures of society in order to create a civilization of true justice and love. Now more than ever, in a world that is often without light and without the courage of noble ideals, people need the fresh, vital spirituality of the Gospel."

Pray for success in overcoming the evil that plagues us and is threatening to destroy us.

Article here.

Former Tucson Bishop Moreno's Admission

In a deposition, former Tucson Bishop Manuel D. Moreno comes clean about allowing pedophile priests to take kids to Disneyland

At the conclusion of Manly's deposition, Moreno once again exhibited repentance.

"As you sit here today," Manly asked Moreno, "is there anything with ... any of the other cases that you would do differently, if you could turn back the clock?"

Moreno stumbled a bit, then said, "Well, I wish we could have avoided them as much as possible. I wish they had been the holy priests they're supposed to be. Perhaps I could have been more strict in that. I don't know."

Article.