Friday, March 19, 2004

John Jay Investigator Refutes David Clohessy's Letter to the Post

The Post Dispatch printed a letter to the editor on March 15, titled "Archbishop Burke is Off-Base on Abuse".

It seems that the only one who was off-base here was the person who penned the letter, David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Karen Terry, Principal Investigator and James Levine, Administrative Coordinator, respond to Clohessy's incorrect statement in a folloe up letter to the Post.
He (Clohessy) states that the John Jay study only included "credible allegations" of abuse and excluded "3000 priests who have since died and were not investigated." This information is incorrect.
It's certainly nice to know the facts.

Full article here.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

St Cronan's, Catholic Action Network, Dissent & Archbishop Burke

While reading the bulletin of St. Cronan's for the Fourth Sunday of Lent, March 21, I came across this interesting article on page 2.
The Holy Families Committee of St. Cronan’s was formed in response to the Vatican’s position toward gays and lesbians in the Catholic church. The Holy Families Committee, in conjunction with Catholic Action Network (CAN), is sponsoring an Issues and Inspiration presentation on Saturday, April 3rd at Adams School (1311 Tower Grove Ave.) from 9:00—11:00 a.m. The presentation will focus on the Vatican document, “Considerations Regarding Proposal to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”. Please feel free to invite anyone who is interested in discussing this document and our response to it. Childcare will NOT be provided. We look forward to seeing you there.
One wonders just how the teaching of the Church will be maligned and distorted and rejected at this 'presentation'?

Why would I say such a thing? Take a look at the Catholic Action Network website and you will notice that on Wednesday, March 24, they are having a "Global" Day of Prayer for Women's Ordination with a candlelight vigil at the Cathedral Basilica at 6:00pm. Surely this St. Louis based unCatholic group can rouse a "global" response for women's ordination which is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Church.

I'm wondering how many of those who attended the recent VOTF conference will be at these meetings?

They have also included additional information on Archbishop Burke, presumably as a condemnation of his other works and efforts in promoting authentic Catholic doctrine when they conclude by saying "Well, that should give you the gist of things."

Here is what they posted about our wonderful Archbishop:
Raymond L. Burke:The spiritual moderator of the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins.

He is involved with the Call to Holiness conference with Mitch Pacwa and Cardinal Lopez Trujillo.

He has publicly opposed the withdrawal of hydration and nutrition in the Schiavo case in Florida, saying *"It is never permissible to remove food and water to cause death"

*He is the national director of the Marian Catechist association, founded by John Hardon, SJ. "The Marian Catechist Apostolate helps you develop a spiritual life that prepares you for your consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, while at the same time, it helps to prepare you, doctrinally, to pass on this tremendous gift of the Faith, with confidence, through the home-study courses." "Do whatever He tells you"! (Marian Catechist motto) from the Marian Catechist web page:

He has given talks to the Wanderer Forum Foundation and has been sponsored by Catholics United for the Faith (Milwaukee, December 6-7, 2002). See also

He is on the advisory board of the Cardinal Newman Society, along with Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Bishop Doran of Rockford, Archbishop Donoghue of Atlanta, and Archbishop Meyers
of Newark. The mission of the Cardinal Newman Society is to promote Catholic identity in higher education, especially through the implementation of /Ex Corde Ecclesiae/ (

He has addressed the national convention of Catholics United for the Faith in their "Church Teaches Forum", along with " His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze, His Eminence Edouard Cardinal
Gagnon, Bishop Thomas Doran, Bishop Raymond Burke, and Fr. Edmund McCaffrey("

According to the National Catholic Register, Bishop Burke was one of the eight signers of a letter calling for a plenary council to address the clergy sex-abuse scandal : "The bishops' letter says the plenary council would center on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar Magisterium on the life of bishops and priests, on sexual morality in general and on celibate chastity as an authentic form of human sexuality. It also would affirm the means by which the Church has told pastors they can live a virtuous life, including daily celebration of Mass, frequent confession and obedient submission to Church teaching. (

Well, that should give you the gist of things.
It's no wonder they are upset! Archbishop Burke is not a moral relativist. He is not a dissenter of Catholic faith and morals. He is not someone who would support their agenda of destroying the Church. How sad! How pitiably sad for them! We can pray our prayers of thanksgiving that our Lord has seen fit to bless us with a shepherd and spiritual father like Archbishop Burke who proclaims the truth of Christ to us in union with the Holy Father. We have so much for which to be thankful!

Vice-Mayor of Phoenix Criticizes Bishop Olmsted for permitting Latin Mass

What we have here is another uninformed individual who has probably never read the documents of Vatican II and who, as it appears in the article, is more concerned about himself rather than the wishes and desires of the Church. Some excerpts:
...permitting or encouraging Latin masses is part of a misguided trend to go back in time to the romanticized church of the 1940's and 1950's. Today's Catholic Church is not the fictional movie church of Bing Crosby, Ingrid Bergman or Barry Fitzgerald. We don't speak Latin to each other. I greet people with "hello" and not "salve".

There was a reason that the Second Vatican Council called for services to be held in the vernacular.
Here is the first clue he is ignorant of "Sacrosanctum Concilium".
...Sadly, some in the church today would prefer to reverse many of the Vatican II reforms.

Conservative groups such as Opus Dei have infiltrated the clergy in many communities and are subtly wielding power to influence many of these changes. Such groups would be much happier if all priests wore cassocks and birettas and all nuns returned to wearing habits and living in convents, instead of actively participating in community affairs and in encouraging social justice.

This past year, we have seen a de-emphasis in the role of the laity in Mass services, with lesser roles for lectors and Eucharistic ministers and an emphasis on the roles of priests and deacons. Where is this all leading? Will the next papal bull require women to again wear hats in church?
What happened to the "spirit of Vatican II"? I dare say, most never knew what it was to begin with.

Full article here.

Hans Küng tells why Jesuit college rejected young Wojtyla

This is classic:
Küng said Wojtyla´s studies had focused on the neo-scholastic theology of St Thomas Aquinas. He was admitted to the Dominicans´ Angelicum University after ordination in 1946.

"I think it’s a fact that Karol Wojtyla does not know enough modern exegesis, history of dogmas, modern theology," he said. "He has a very traditional neo-scholastic training, but I think that these are his limits, and I do not see why we cannot speak openly about that."
This coming from a man who has, for all intents and purposes, rejected the Church.

Full article here.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Latin Masses to be allowed after 25 years

Latin Masses to be allowed after 25 years
Michael Clancy
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 17, 2004 12:00 AM

Latin, the ancient language of the Catholic Church, will be allowed in Diocese
of Phoenix churches for the first time in at least 25 years.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, reversing 20 years of diocesan policy, announced the
change to priests at a meeting earlier this month. A committee will report today
on details.

Olmsted said he will institute the Tridentine Mass to promote reconciliation
with individuals who prefer the service, to comply with Pope John Paul II's
wishes to resume the Latin rite, and to invite back those who left the church
after Latin Masses were dropped.

It is likely that the Latin service will be held in a limited number of
churches. The modern English-language Mass would continue to dominate in the

"The decision in no way casts doubt upon the validity" of the current service,
instituted during and after the Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s, Olmsted

A leader of a dissident church praised the decision.

"This is a step in the right direction," said the Rev. Joseph Pfeiffer, pastor
of Our Lady of Sorrows in south Phoenix, which is not recognized by the diocese.
But the church must return completely to the old ways, he said, before his
congregation will feel comfortable with the Catholics.

Mass in Latin was the norm for the church throughout history, and Latin remains
the church's official language. The pope approved the resumption of Latin Mass
in 1984, but former Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien never allowed them.

No link yet...passed on via email.

*** Updated *** Link is here.

St Thomas Aquinas and the Passion

James V. Schall, S. J.
Georgetown University, DC 20057-1200

St Thomas asks in Question 46, a. 3, which asks, "whether there was some more convenient or apt way to free the human race than through the Passion of Christ?"
Now Aquinas, surprisingly perhaps, does not deny that our redemption could have been effected otherwise. By a simple act of His will, per solam Dei voluntatem, the Father could have liberated us, Thomas tells us. But when God does not act in the way we would have Him act, this difference gives us occasion to wonder if there is not more to it than meets our eyes. God does not just redeem us in a way that has nothing to do with us, or with our understanding of what is going on.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004


Karl Keating takes some heat for the Catholic Answers Voter's Guide. This should come as no surprise as many are still confused on basic, primary, fundamental issues affecting our country.
March 16, 2004

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

As I note at the end of each E-Letter, I'm not in a position to answer (let alone solicit!) comments. Writing this E-Letter is not my full-time job, and I want to keep it that way.

Still, many people reply to what I write here, and I read each e-mail that comes in. A very few I answer myself, and a few others I forward to our staff apologists. The majority of the messages I just read and try to learn from.

The February 24 E-Letter was mainly about Catholic Answers' "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." Let me share with you a few of the comments I received.


David Ewing had these comments:

"While I am adamantly opposed to all the mortal sins you listed, I cannot in good conscience vote for the current administration and/or their cronies & subordinates. Whereas they do hold to Church teaching in their moral/sexual positions, they completely ignore--if not repudiate--teaching about helping one's fellow man, the environment, international cooperation, etc. Why not give any emphasis at all to those important issues, Karl? Are they of no import? Or are you, when it comes to politics, just a right-wing Fundamentalist with a rosary?"

Before I answer Mr. Ewing (I respond to his last question at the end of this E-Letter), let me present comments from others readers who have opinions similar to his.

Bob Storch wrote:

"Your simplistic five 'non-negotiable' Catholic issues is not smart voting. ... The right to life extends beyond the womb. Where do candidates stand on the death penalty? The right to life extends to the quality of life. Where do candidates stand on education and health care? The right to life extends to the dignity of work. Where do candidates stand on jobs, trade, and taxes? ... Narrowing the voting process to a simplistic five-issue check-off is not smart."

Lynn Norris said "ditto":

"Your assertion that 'serious' Catholics should vote for a candidate based solely on any one of the five issues outlined (important though they are) is truly frightening. There are numerous critical moral issues that require conscientious examination and evaluation by people of faith when deciding who should get their vote. ... Your suggestion that some Catholics are voting 'dumb' based only on the five issues on the list is offensive to 'serious' Catholics."

Ronald J. Jebaily said pretty much the same thing:

"This time you have gone over the top. Single-issue voters are dumb by definition, and Catholics who vote only on a candidate's pro-life v. pro-choice position are dumber still, because we are raised on the whole of the Church's social teaching. It is the fallacy of our time that abortion is the last remaining sin. Our Catholic faith should inform our complete value structure so that we can make effective political choices with regard to all the issues facing us, including abortion."

Each of these four correspondents labors under one or more misunderstandings.

1. The "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" doesn't tell the reader which candidates to vote for but which to vote against: Candidates who are wrong on any of the five "non-negotiables" should be eliminated from consideration. Then choose from among the remaining candidates based on other issues. No matter how good he may be on "jobs, trade, and taxes," a candidate who favors homicide (which is what four of the five non-negotiables are) shouldn't get your vote.

2. So far as I know, no candidates for any offices are running on platforms that favor racism, which is why that issue wasn't included among the non-negotiables. But assume there were such candidates. Would you argue that it would be permissible to vote for them, on the theory that they might be right on all the issues except race?

Of course not. You would say their pro-racist position should exclude them from consideration, since racism is a vile thing. As vile as racism is, the killing of innocent people in such things as human cloning and euthanasia is worse.

By crossing off our lists the racist and the candidate who supports any of the five non-negotiables, we don't become one-issue voters, because we go on to take into account other, lesser issues. What we accomplish with this methodology is to declare that some things are beyond the pale and that candidates who want to vie for our votes need to qualify themselves minimally by passing a certain threshold.

3. Issues such as education, health care, the environment, jobs, trade, and taxes are all important--but on them Catholics are permitted a wide liberty. On the five non-negotiables, there is only one possible position for a conscientious Catholic to take: complete opposition. The Church mandates no such uniformity on these other issues.

Consider taxes. How should the tax code be structured? Should we stick with the current system, should we go back to much steeper rates, or should we change to a flat rate for everyone? There is no "Catholic position" here, since any of those systems can qualify under Catholic principles. You may argue in favor of soaking the rich, and I may argue in favor of doing away with income taxes entirely (or the other way around), and neither of us exceeds the bounds of Catholic principles.

Consider jobs. Should we institute government-created jobs, as was done during the Depression? Should we foster jobs by lowering corporate tax rates? Should we give tax breaks to small businesses to help them get off the ground? Any of those positions may be advocated by a Catholic--or opposed by a Catholic. Again, the Church doesn't mandate a particular arrangement--this is true even though particular prelates may argue for one solution or another.

Consider education. Should more money be spent on public schools? Should less? Should some arrangement, such as vouchers or tax credits, be made available for private, including religious, schools? Should home economics classes be scrapped? Should the phonics system be used? Again, a Catholic is free to support or to oppose any of these positions. There is no Catholic party line. Nothing in the creeds tells us whether "Huckleberry Finn" should be assigned reading or whether students should be mandated to attend physical education classes.

4. The voter's guide did not give any "emphasis" (to use Mr. Ewing's word) to these other issues because they aren't black-and-white the way the five non-negotiables are. They are at a different level morally.

No one ever claimed that "abortion is the last remaining sin," to use Mr. Jebaily's phrase. But abortion is such a heinous sin that people advocating it should forfeit our votes. If a candidate is wrong on such a basic issue, what trust can be put in his judgment when it comes to a lesser matter, such as what tariff rate, if any, should be applied to sugar? We would not reward a racist with our vote, so why should we reward someone who is wrong on abortion or the other non-negotiables?

5. The complainants seem to operate from a "seamless garment" approach, but that approach, over the last two decades, failed to advance the Church's teaching on the lesser issues while giving nominally-Catholic politicians "cover" to do nothing at all on the non-negotiables. In theory the "seamless garment" sounds great. In practice it has been a failure.

The fact is that issues are not all on the same level morally. Whether a child dies through abortion is more important than whether a child gets a free school lunch. Moreover, there is an official Catholic position on abortion, but there is not one on free school lunches. One can favor or oppose a school lunch program and be considered a good Catholic, but one can't favor abortion and be so considered.

6. Finally, to answer Mr. Ewing's most pressing question: No, when it comes to politics, I am not "just a right-wing Fundamentalist with a rosary." I am a Catholic with a rosary.


Nancy Weiland had a different complaint:

"You state you will not 'name names.' I feel very strongly that in order to bring about change, you cannot be vague or oblique. Most people need to be hit over the head before they truly understand the message and what's at stake, and in order to do that, you really must 'name names'!"

Tracey Kelly went much further:

"Man, oh man. ... I stopped reading 'cause I was getting really disgusted. ... I don't care what reasons you chose not to mention specifically what politicians or parties were against very basic Catholic and Christian principles ... the bottom line is the same. ... If you don't have the guts, how can you be an example for those you are trying to persuade? I'm sick."

Perk up, friend! No need to get ill over this. Let's think things through.

Our voter's guide makes it clear that the principles it conveys should be applied to all political races, not just those at the national level. Catholic voters should demand the same accountability from candidates who are running for state and local offices as they do from those running for national office. After all, those running for lesser offices, if successful, will be running for greater offices in the future.

In this election year thousands of offices are up for grabs, and tens of thousands of names are appearing on ballots. The "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" is only ten pages long. To "name names" fully, we would need to print not a booklet but a phone book. That's not in our budget.

Maybe my correspondents are thinking chiefly in terms of a few national races. Would there have been room to evaluate the candidates, say, for president and maybe a few senatorial races?

Sure, but that would leave readers with the false impression that they have done their duty when they have applied the five non-negotiables to those races. We wouldn't want that to happen. We want readers to hold all candidates, no matter how obscure the offices, to the same standards, for the reasons given in the guide itself.


Chris Harris smelled a plot:

"I'm rather disappointed in your litmus test (oops, voting guide) for
several reasons, but foremost: It appears to me that you purposely omitted capital punishment from your list of non-negotiable issues, expressly so the person who is currently President of the United States (who is very much pro death penalty) will pass your litmus test! Please tell me this is not so!"

Okay: It is not so. There was no effort to fashion a list that would allow a particular politician to "pass" or to get off easy.

As I discussed in the March 2 issue of the E-Letter, contrary to what many people think, the Church does not demand opposition to capital punishment--so, yes, we "purposefully omitted capital punishment" from the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," but for a very good reason.

Mr. Harris is at liberty to oppose the use of the death penalty and to oppose candidates who support it. Other Catholics are at liberty to support the use of the death penalty and to support candidates who support it. Capital punishment just isn't something that qualifies as a non-negotiable issue, no matter how strongly a particular person may feel about it.


Jackie Gere had a question but not a complaint:

"I wanted to let you know that I love the voter's guide. I ordered 100 to distribute. I do have a question on the title. Why isn't it a voter's guide for all Catholics? Would you please explain why you chose to put the word 'serious' in the title? I anticipate that as I distribute the guides I may get questions on this."

Whew! I appreciate getting off the hot seat for a moment. Here are the reasons:

1. The only Catholics who will apply their faith in the voting booth are, almost by definition, serious people.

2. "Voter's Guide for Catholics" sounds bland. The title sounds better, maybe even a little intriguing, with "Serious" in it.

3. The title flatters the potential reader by implying that he is serious. This makes it more likely that he will read--and use--the guide. (Imagine the effect on the booklet's distribution if the title had been "Voter's Guide for Airhead Catholics.")

Until next time,


What are Catholics Saying about "The Passion of the Christ"?

This is good.

The Catholic League has a list of notable quotes from a number of Catholics, primarily Bishops.

Well worth the read.

Monday, March 15, 2004

New rules on the Eucharist

New rules on the Eucharist
By Luke Coppen

The Vatican will publish strict new norms on the Eucharist next month,
permanently changing the way Mass is celebrated throughout the world.

The Pope has authorised the publication of the norms on Holy Thursday, April 8, a year after his landmark encyclical on the Eucharist.

The final draft of the document, which is now being translated from Latin, will be a carefully edited version of the draft text leaked last September. The draft, which discouraged the reception of communion in both kinds and limited the role of altar girls, provoked an angry reaction from bishops in the English-speaking world.

After intensive episcopal lobbying, the Vatican is understood to have simplified the document and moderated some of the more controversial proscriptions.

The Catholic Herald has learned that the new norms will address some of the most divisive liturgical issues in the Catholic Church today. A source close to the Vatican said the document was part of a drive to "solemnise" the celebration of Mass and to counter a perceived lack of reverence for the Eucharist among Catholics.

It is also likely to challenge the view that the Second Vatican Council gave local bishops the authority to adapt the liturgy. It will also emphasise that Rome must guarantee the universality of the Mass.


Sister Joseph Andrew Bogdanowicz on 3 Key Moments

ANN ARBOR, Michigan, MARCH 15, 2004 ( As a special ZENIT feature, a woman religious offers her view on key parts of the film "The Passion of the Christ." * * *

Three Moments of "The Passion of the Christ"

By Sister Joseph Andrew Bogdanowicz, OP
Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist

Viewing "The Passion of the Christ" affects each person in an individual manner. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the film's portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life on earth, the majority of this depiction of these most sacred hours is rooted in the various Evangelists' accounts found in Scripture.

As a woman religious, I viewed "The Passion" through the eyes of my own feminine nature and the spousal vigilance proper to one whose freely made avowal of the evangelical counsels identifies me as "sponsa Christi." Through such eyes, I have chosen three scenes which have become as the heartbeat of my reflections.

From the opening scenes, I realized that I could not identify with Christ as such. That identification would be more fitting for a priest, who, as "alter Christus," finds his likeness in the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

For me, Jim Caviezel's portrayal of Christ elicited tears wrung from the heart which, I soon understood, was beating as one with Mother Mary's and with all the women portrayed in the film: Mary Magdalene, Veronica, Claudia, the weeping women.

1st: "All Things New"

I watched Christ, I walked with him, I desired to wipe the dirt (which as a woman so bothered me) plastered with ever increasing thickness upon his holy face.

My admiration of Christ's Mother grew as, deep within my own being, I reacted to the bloodthirsty crowds which swirled in mad frenzy throughout the film in their physical and mental brutality toward Christ.

I felt my own body lean toward the screen and had to hold myself back to prevent the release my heart sought. I wanted to shout Simon's later words: "Stop! Haven't you done enough? Stop!"

But she, the Mother, did not; neither did he, the Son and innocent victim. Rather, when the Mother, following the manly logic of John's directions, was able to approach her Son, she tenderly said, "I am here!" And he responded by gifting her (and us) with the secret of obtaining the strength necessary for propitious redemptive suffering: "See, Mother, I make all things new" (Revelation 21:5).

St. Louis de Montfort must have rejoiced anew in heaven at this poignant scene culled from the spiritual reflection of Mel Gibson. Can we not summarize the Marian entrustment which John Paul II's coat of arms has displayed to the world for a quarter of a century now as the simple suggestion, "Through the Mother to the Son"?

Perhaps the greatest moment of a mother's love is known when her resolute strength emboldens her children for a suffering the world cannot understand but one rooted, by the redemptive value it offers, in the opened heart of the Christ.

2nd: His Presence

A personal spousal moment for me was epitomized when the Mother was wildly running through the streets in search of her bound and already brutally beaten Son.

Upon crossing over the ground which hid his physical presence from her eyes, as he was held in the dungeon below on that fateful night, she instantly knew his presence; and, bending down, she touched her cheek, her heart, to the ground.

Jesus, too, knew his Mother's closeness and, as the cameras fell below the dust to the hollowed and dirty tabernacle below, the viewer is able to catch Jesus reaching out his hand in an invisible embrace with the woman he loves. The One whom "the rocks like wax melt before his glance" (Judith 16:15) was separated from his Mother, but they still knew a oneness beyond the things of this world.

Similarly, as "sponsa Christi," I am not gifted with the marvelous sensible affects a bride comes to know in her husband. Therefore, the interior communication is heightened, and through this I know Christ's presence with me: each morning in Eucharistic adoration with my community, in each holy Communion, and by reaching out to each person my Spouse sends me.

Through my embrace of all people, regardless of their individual strengths and weaknesses, I know the touch of my Spouse and that touch spiritually fructifies our union as I, with him, behold all humanity as my spiritual children.

3rd: The Pietà, and priests

The third moment which I wish to point out is that immortalized by Michelangelo's famed Pietà. The Son lies in the lap of the Mother once again. Though the Man of Sorrows is now dead, I cannot view this scene as anything but Hope Personified.

As a woman and as a religious sister, this scene calls me to carry, support and love each individual priest whom the Almighty Father places within the radius of my heart's care; ultimately, all priests.

As the wife is made, by holy marriage, the helpmate of her husband, I, a religious sister, become, by virtue of my vocation, the helpmate par excellence of each priest.

When the priest is young, healthy and dynamic, my love is there to prayerfully support him, as Mary supported her Son, oftentimes from what might appear to others as afar.

When the priest must carry his cross for the salvation of the world, I wish to accompany him in my role as co-martyr for the fecundity of the children of God.

And when he appears broken, spent, given, I wish that it be my heart -- through my prayers, sacrifices and support -- upon which he might find peaceful rest. Without him, I have no Eucharistic Spouse; with him, the Church is given Christ until the end of time.

In his role at daily Mass, the priest shows me, again, what it means to be Mary: at the birth in Bethlehem, during her Son's public life of preaching and healing, in the silence of unitive prayer, and, finally, in receiving his Body when Calvary is completed.

With "alter Christus," the religious woman as bride awaits the promised resurrection even as she hears a familiar voice within assuring her: "Mother, behold I make all things new."

Would I advise everyone to experience this movie, even those who have no Christian background? My answer is "yes" without hesitation.

All persons are made in the likeness of God and thus are "imago Dei." The Angelic (Dominican) Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, assures us: "The light of your face, Lord, is signed upon us" ("Summa Theologiae," I-II, q. 91, a.2). The Apostle John gives us a one-word name for God: "Love."

We were made by Love; for Love; and to receive and give this Love who is God.

I submit this movie has the power to resonate in all hearts because it is the greatest Love story. With faith, one can only fall back in adoration ... knowing here is a Man who loves me.

The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable.

Save Marriage? It's Too Late.
The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable.

This article in the Wall Street Journal seems to get part of it right. Fr John Hardon said for years that contraception is one of the primary reasons our society has become so paganized and why this nation and others murder its own children.

No nation has ever survived after having gone down the path of contraception, abortion, infanticide. We are witnessing the implosion of a once great country. We and others have contracepted ourselves into oblivion!

The question that must be asked is why have so many of our bishops and priests been so silent about contraception, which, according to Fr. Hardon's calculations some time ago, result in more than 5 times the number of abortions as those performed in clinics, etc. That is, somewhere near 9 million deaths/murders actually occur in the US due to the pill and direct abortions. To be truly pro-life one must reject, not only the insideous evil of abortion, but also the gravely immoral act of contraception, as well.