Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Catholic Priests Inflict Pain and Agony on Millions

How Dare They? Toxic Masculinity in Roman Collars.
Did you hear about the four Catholic priests who attended the Trump rally in Montana right after the fourth of July? My gosh, the temerity of them! The gall! Priests having the hutzpah to go out in public actually dressed as priests inflicting pain and agony on millions and millions of leftist Catholics and their allied bishops and Chancery staffs...

Tuesday, April 03, 2018

Canada's Bishops Beguiled In The Wake Of Vatican II

In a previous post I covered the subject of a 1958 document produced by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops, a pastoral letter entitled "The Family In Canada," wherein we see that the Church's teaching concerning contraception was being upheld and unabashedly promoted by the Bishops. Yet by 1968 we stand amazed, puzzling: What invasion of thought and spirit so beguiled these shepherds in that short span of years?
This statement by the Bishops deserves to be revisited in 2018 if for no other reason than to support the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. That encyclical remains "ground zero" for the current Catholic Church crisis since it served as a magnet for the heresy and hatred for tradition which was metastasizing in the Church in the wake of modernism. The vast rebellion that followed vented its fury on the person of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, laying waste to altar, liturgy and doctrine in order to beat into the ground all that was holy and true. The results have been catastrophic: a pervasive culture of sacrilege and profanation, measured daily in the multiple millions and never challenged by Canada's Bishops.  [SOURCE]
The letter appearing below was crafted by Monsignor Vincent Foy as a response to the article "Humanae Vitae Confusae" by Father Leo Walsh C.S.B., "professor emeritus of moral theology of the University of St. Michael’s College Faculty of Theology" in Toronto, Canada. Father Walsh is a member of the staff of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute. Msgr. Foy's letter explains much of what happened in the ten year span referenced above.


Father Leo Walsh and “Humanae Vitae Confusae”

by Monsignor Vincent N. Foy

In the September 2008 issue of “Bioethics Matters” is an article entitled “Humanae Vitae Confusae” by Father Leo Walsh, C.S.B.. It is written for the 40th Anniversary of the publication of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae” of July 25, 1968. Father Walsh, professor emeritus of moral theology of the University of St. Michael’s College Faculty of Theology, is a member of the staff of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute.

The article is well named. It succeeds in hiding the encyclical in a smog of questions and doubts. It considers Humanae Vitae from the aspect of problem rather than solution.

A Confusing Label

We are told that the teaching of Humanae Vitae is very weighty teaching, but not infallible. This opinion of Father Walsh is gratuitously asserted. There are other opinions.

Some have argued that the doctrine against contraception has been infallibly proclaimed. Notable in this regard is the monumental work of Father Ermengildo Lio, reportedly one of the authors of Humanae Vitae: “Humanae Vitae e Infallibilita.” He believes that the language of Humanae Vitae, invoking the authority of Christ meant that the Pope made a solemn definition of Church doctrine. Pope John Paul II expressed thanks for this book, which has been defended by others, e.g. Father Brian Harrison.

Many believe that, whether the doctrine of Humanae Vitae has been infallibly defined, it is infallibly taught. Perhaps the best presentation of this conclusion in English is “The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defence,” by John C. Ford, S.J.; Germain Grisez; Joseph Boyle, John Finnis and William E. May (Ignatius Press, 1988).

What is relevant is that the teaching of the Church against contraception bound the consciences of Catholics in past centuries regardless of the absence of modern insights. It binds today regardless of any particular theological label, whether it is infallibly defined, infallibly taught or authoritatively proclaimed by the ordinary magisterium. It binds because it is given to us by Peter’s successor with Christ’s authority (cf. Humanae Vitae, n. 6).

What is the duty of theologians on this matter? They are to give the example of loyal assent both internal and external to the Magisterium’s teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality (cf. the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, n. 110).

The Disconnect

As Father Walsh points out, there is a large disconnect between Church teaching on artificial birth control and the practice of Catholic couples. According to one survey, conducted by MacLeans magazine in 1993, 91% of Catholics approve of contraception. It is not likely that the statistics are any better today. Father Walsh also points out that there are far reaching consequences of this disconnect.

Why do so many Catholic couples act contrary to Church teaching? Fr. Walsh says there are different reasons. He proposes three:

1. “It may be that a couple has considered the whole question, has studied prayerfully the whole question, has studied prayerfully the teaching of the Church, has read theological opinion on the matter, and has come to the conclusion that the teaching is either wrong or incomplete.”

In all my pastoral experience I never met such a couple, and, if they do exist, they are very rare. They do not help explain the 90% disconnect.

2. “It may be that a couple has tried to live by the teaching but has found that they do not have the moral strength to do so.”

Such a couple apparently accepts the Church’s teaching, but do not use adequate means of grace. If so they are in sin. They do not explain the 90% disconnect.

3. “It may be that a couple has not thought much about the
matter at all. It is taken for granted that nowadays couples practise birth control. It is not a matter of morality.”

This may be for some a cause of disconnect, but it is a remote cause, not a proximate one and does not explain the disconnect.

The reason for the disconnect is not only that Church teaching was not generally taught, but that the teaching was undermined by silence, error and dissent. There was a massive betrayal of the Church, Pope and Catholics. Here we list only part of that betrayal in Canada.

Before the encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968

1. In 1964 the errors of Father Louis Janssens of Belgium, Fr. Schillebeeckx of Holland, and others spread like an Aids virus through academic circles of many countries, including Canada.

2. A book was published by Herder and Herder in 1964 called “Contraception and Holiness”. It presented itself as a “balanced and perceptive declaration of Christian dissent.” Among the contributors were three professors of St. Michael’s College in Toronto: Gregory Baum, O.S.A., Stanley Kutz, C.S.B., and Leslie Dewart.

3. At the third session of Vatican II on Oct. 29, 1964, Cardinal Leger of Montreal advocated that fecundity should be a duty pertaining to the state of matrimony as a whole rather than the individual act.

4. Gregory Baum was a catalyst of dissent in Canada and elsewhere, through interviews, tapes and articles. An interview with Gregory Baum was printed in the Toronto Globe and Mail for April 9, 1966. It was entitled “Catholics May Use Contraceptives Now.”

5. In some dioceses, such as Toronto, London, Ottawa and Sault Ste. Marie, confessional norms were given contrary to Church teaching.

After Humanae Vitae

1. After Humanae Vitae was published on July 24, 1968, Canadian papers contained scores of comments, most of them derogatory. Fr. Edward Sheridan, S.J., said: “It [Humanae Vitae] did not necessarily demand absolute obedience”. Gregory Baum said Catholics had the right to dissent.

2. In support of a group of dissenters based at St. Michael’s College, Toronto, Fr. Walter Principe, C.S.B., professor and writer for the Canadian Bishops, said: “For some Catholics the proper conduct of their family life can mean using other forms of birth control than the rhythm method” (Toronto Globe and Mail. Aug. 6, 1968).

3. On a CBC coast to coast television program on Aug. 18, 1968, Father Edward Sheridan S.J., Father Robert Crooker C.S.B., and Father Walter Principe C.S.B., attacked the encyclical.

4. In August 1968, Archbishop Plourde of Ottawa issued a pastoral statement. He said individuals have the right to “reach a judgement different from that of the Holy Father.”

5. Early in Sept., 1968 I spoke on the encyclical at a Serra Club meeting. I was cross-questioned with evident hostility by two priest-professors of St. Michael’s College.

6. Pressure groups sprang up calling for "freedom of conscience”. Among them were the Western Canadian Conference of Priests, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in Dialogue, the Canadian Institute of Theology and 58 “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University.

7. Fifteen directors of the departments at the CCCB signed a statement calling for a “Vatican II Approach.” They said that a large number of Canadian priests were agonizing “in acute crisis of conscience.” I never met one such priest.

The Winnipeg Statement and After

The Canadian bishops met at Winnipeg in September of 1968. In the name of the Holy Father in August 1968, Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State, had asked them to stand firm with the Holy Father in his presentation of Church teaching in Humanae Vitae. Instead, they issued a disastrous commentary called the Winnipeg Statement. They said that in some circumstances Catholic couples could be safely assured that “whoever chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience” (n. 26).

A fair assessment of the Winnipeg Statement was given by Dale Francis of the U.S. newspaper Twin Circle on Oct. 29, 1968: “The practical consequence has been that it has been interpreted as virtually negating the Pope’s proscription of contraceptives.”

Thousands of Catholic couples have justified their use of contraceptives by referring to the Winnipeg Statement:

1. The Winnipeg Statement was carried around the world by many vehicles e.g. Time magazine, The Tablet, America, Commonweal and Catholic Mind. Bishop Bushwell of Pueblo cited the Canadian Bishops to support his thesis “Dissent Not Disloyalty” (Commonweal, Nov. 15, 1968).

2. Education was quickly infected. Two of the seven priests dismissed from St. John Vianney Seminary in Buffalo for dissent from Humanae Vitae were welcomed into St. Augustine’s Seminary in Toronto.

3. Douglas Roche, who was with the Western Catholic Reporter at the time of the Winnipeg meeting. He wrote a book entitled “The Catholic Revolution”. In the second edition, 1969, he quoted from the Winnipeg Statement to show “How dissent and loyalty can co-exist within Catholicism.” In truth, dissent is an act of profound disloyalty.

4. Perhaps the most damaging of all texts was “Christ Among Us” by Father Anthony Wilhelm, C.S.P.. I have seen stacks of this text in Canadian Catholics rectories. By the time Cardinal Ratzinger asked Bishop Gerety of Newark to withdraw his Imprimatur on Feb. 28, 1984, 1,500,000 copies had been sold throughout the world. From the time of its second edition, over 300,000 copies quoted the Winnipeg statement to support dissent from Humanae Vitae.

5. Other texts carried the life and soul-destroying Winnipeg message, e.g. “Married in the Lord” by Father Michael Prieur, “New Hope for Divorced Catholics” by Father Barry Brunsman, “Catholics Ask” by Father O’Shea, and the marriage preparation course “Mosaic”, published by Novalis.

6. In 1980 the CCCB published a working paper on Marriage and Family. It gave us 190 pages of a general plan to promote Faith “In and Through the Family”. There is no mention of Humanae Vitae. It depends largely on theological opinion, often dissenting, e.g. Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Fuchs, Boff, and others. The text confirms the Winnipeg Statement by recommending marriage preparation courses which confirm it e.g. “Mosaic” and “Good News for Married Love.”

7. In response to the synod on the Family, the CCCB published a Working Paper “Responsible Procreation”, in 1983. It refers to Familaris Consortio only once. It follows the syncretic approach of quoting from dissenting theologians e.g. Curran, Rahner, Shannon, H¬ring, as well as some orthodox sources. It creates an impression of uncertainty and confusion. It criticises that attitude which would make of the prohibition of contraception “a sort of article of faith in dogma so that there is an end to all discussion and private or public questioning.” In conclusion, it says “To state that it is possible for everyone to carry out this law (against contraception) would risk creating in the faithful a feeling of despair and guilt” (p.52).

8. Articles appeared in Catholic periodicals spreading the moral relativism of the Winnipeg Statement. Examples are: Humanae Vitae – Une question ouverte” (L’Eglise Canadienne, 11, 12, 1980) and “Aids, Condoms, and the Church” by Fr. Bela Somfai, S.J. (Compass, November, 1987).

9. While Humanae Vitae was attacked and more and more Catholics were contracepting, shepherds and pulpits were silent. Confessionals were deserted.

Much more could be added. I think one need look no further for the reason for the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic practise – Catholic teaching was not taught. Because of the new defective catechism series, Come to the Father, Catholics did not have a solid foundation for their faith.


In the treatment of conscience there is much that is confused and confusing in “Humanae Vitae Confusae”.

We are told that Canada’s bishops, from their first response to Humanae Vitae, rightly recognised the primacy of conscience. In fact, in their Winnipeg Statement of 1968 the Canadian Bishops wrongly affirmed the primacy of the subjective conscience, the root error of Protestantism. They said that in some circumstances couples could use those means of contraception which seemed right to them.

Vatican II was careful to avoid the error of the primacy of the subjective conscience. Cardinal Felici explained how an attempt to avoid the subjective primacy of conscience was made in the evolution of the text of Vatican II. The expression “conscience to be enlightened by the divine law” was replaced by the more precise “conscience to be conformed to the divine law” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 29, 1968, p.6).

We read in Vatican II: “When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral; aspect of any procedure – must be determined by objective standards – relying on this principle, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law” (Vatican II, The Church in the Modern World, n. 50). “Conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in light of the teaching authority of the Church” (ibid.).

Father Walsh tells us that a good conscience can be in error. If it is in error it is not a good conscience. Conscience is not a source of truth. As Msgr. Cormac Burke has said, truth is independent of conscience but conscience is not independent of truth. A good conscience is informed and then conformed. Otherwise the conscience is deformed, with the consequences inherent in objective evil.

A great theologian of the last century wrote: “It is nonsense for a Catholic to set up in opposition to the authority of the Encyclical (Humanae Vitae) the authority of his own personal conscience” (Cardinal P. Journet, “The Light of the Encyclical”, L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 1968, p. 10). It is nonsense, but still repeated, with disastrous results. Father Walsh recognises this when he says “Where erroneous conscience is widespread harm is widespread.” That is the situation today.

Confusion by hypothesis

A considerable part of the article is about hypothetical suppositions.

We are told of the negative effects if there is no intrinsic connection between the unitive and generative dimension of the act of intercourse. Some of these is that the claim that extra-marital relations (fornication and adultery) and homosexual genital expression are immoral cannot be easily maintained. There could be no argument from authority or from intrinsic reasons. Other consequences are detailed.

Other hypothetical questions are asked e.g. “Is the Church correct?” and “Might it be that the Church is indeed wrong about sexuality generally?” More questions are raised.

It is difficult to justify the raising of such hypothetical matters when the questions have already been answered by the Church with the authority of Christ. That was precisely the reason for Humanae Vitae. As the Pope said “We now intend by virtue of the mandate extended to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions” (Humanae Vitae n.6).

End note

In evaluating the article by Father Leo Walsh C.S.B. it is good to recall the words of Pope John Paul II, which leave no room for confusion. Speaking of the Church’s teaching against contraception he said: “It is not, in fact, a doctrine invented by man; it was stamped in the very nature of the human person by God the creator’s hand and confirmed by Him in revelation. Calling it into question, therefore, is equivalent to refusing God Himself the obedience of our intelligence” (Nov. 12, 1988).

Perhaps more relevant still are the words of Pope Paul VI to priests: “Your first task – especially in the case of those who teach moral theology – is to explain the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity” (Humanae Vitae n.25).

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Contraception Is Ground Zero For The Spiritual Battle of Our Day

If you are a regular visitor to this blog this Michael Voris video will be unsurprising. It appears to be from a talk that Michael gave just this week so it includes some very interesting up to date data and perspective. Behold, this topic explains so much of our current #CatholicChurchCrisis.

Friday, March 09, 2018

In Pre-Vatican II Canada, What Were Catholic Bishops Thinking About Contraception?

Pope Pius XII (left) dies in 1958, succeeded by Pope John XXIII
In this pre-Vatican II document from 1958 produced by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops we see that the Church's teaching concerning contraception was being upheld and unabashedly promoted by the Bishops. It is unclear what prompted the Bishops to issue their pastoral letter entitled "The Family In Canada" but the general sense of the letter is that pressures seemed to be mounting against family and marriage and great concern was felt by the Bishops.

For historical context, it's worth noting that Pope Pius XII had died just a month prior to the release of this letter (although clearly that event was unrelated to the pastoral letter).

Keep in mind this document was compiled less than four years before Vatican II and a full ten years before Pope Paul VI's encyclical entitled "Humanae Vitae." Note that the language used concerning "artificial birth prevention" and divorce is striking and unequivocal in terms of support of official Church teaching, whereas in the aftermath of Vatican II, what was striking was a spirit of change and liberality.

Another remarkable aspect of the pastoral letter "The Family In Canada" is that there is no mention whatever of abortion. Of course abortion was in all respects illegal at that time (1958) but imagine, if you can, a society and social setting where abortion is so uncontroversially evil and criminal that it is rightly consigned to the same status and category as a grievous crime, unworthy of the attention of the faithful, even in an address on the family. Now imagine only seven or eight years hence the same Bishops resigned to a softening of law on the "complex" subject of abortion. Mind boggling. What invasion of thought and spirit so beguiled these shepherds in that short span of years?

This statement by the Bishops deserves to be revisited in 2018 if for no other reason than to support the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. That encyclical remains "ground zero" for the current Catholic Church crisis since it served as a magnet for the heresy and hatred for tradition which was metastasizing in the Church in the wake of modernism. The vast rebellion that followed vented its fury on the person of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, laying waste to altar, liturgy and doctrine in order to beat into the ground all that was holy and true. The results have been catastrophic: a pervasive culture of sacrilege and profanation, measured daily in the multiple millions and never challenged by Canada's Bishops.

[For further overall context, see my posting from 2013 entitled How Catholic Bishops in Canada Privatized Contraception, Divorce and Abortion.]


The Family In Canada

Author -The Administrative Board, Canadian Catholic Conference, Nov. 13, 1958

At a time when Christian teaching on marriage is being assailed and family life undermined, we re-affirm emphatically the Church’s' constant teaching that marriage was instituted by God. The inclination to marry was implanted in man's nature by his Creator; forthright divine teaching confirmed the inclination of human nature; and Christ not only renewed the original decree of God but raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, thereby giving husband and wife the means to attain holiness in the married state. Furthermore, the first man and woman received an explicit divine command that their permanent union should be the natural beginning of the human race. Thus the family has its origin in God, and the begetting of children is both the primary purpose and the first blessing of marriage.

Many consequences flow from this. First, God's plan concerning marriage and the family cannot be changed at the whim or even by the formal decree of individuals or societies. Second, the entire range of human relationships must be ordered to respect the nature of marriage and promote the welfare of the family. The chief reason why the Church is concerned for problems of economic and social life is that disorders in these fields imperil the welfare of the family. To enable the family to attain its destiny, the Church has repeatedly em­phasized the need for a program of social reconstruction. History shows that  no  civilization  has  long  endured without a vigorous family life, and that one of the first symptoms of the decay of a civilization is the disintegration of its family life, marked by a loss of respect for marriage,  an increase in divorce and the refusal of married couples to have children.

I— Flagrant Sins against Nature

This refusal too often leads them to prevent conception by artificial means. Such actions are sinful because they interfere with the functioning of a natural faculty. To frustrate these powers of nature is a serious matter; serious, indeed, because the conception of every human being involves the creation of a spiritual, immortal soul. For this reason the Church reaffirms its teaching, based on the law of God and of nature, that artificial birth prevention is sinful under any circumstances. As for divorce, it harms human welfare, being contrary to human nature, which tends towards a permanent union bringing security to husband and wife, children and society as a whole. Proof of this is that divorce, while seeming to solve a marital problem, almost invariably causes a host of new problems and evils, individual and social. Marriage is by nature indissoluble, in the sense that it cannot be dissolved by any merely human authority. Indissolubility is of the essence of marriage and an integral part of its constitution. Divorce, by weakening its foundation, places the whole structure of family life—and therefore of society—in peril of collapse.

Thus, divorce and artificial birth-prevention are flagrant sins against God’s plan for marriage and the family. They are also sins against human nature. Men and women are more tempted to sin in these ways as the difficulties of marriage and family life become excessively burdensome. Weak, misguided couples turn from the personal sacrifices required for domestic peace and the proper rearing of families; in divorce and birth-prevention they seek false solutions to their difficulties. All this emphasizes the need for promoting legitimate ways of mitigating or eliminating the difficulties which tempt men and women to sin against God’s plan. It makes clear the need for formal programs or pre-marital and marital instruction to teach young couples the true nature of marriage and the family.

II— Housing Shortage

Here in Canada one of the foremost difficulties confronting families is insufficient and inadequate housing. The Federal Minister of Labour has noted that many are living in houses which "no Canadian should be living in".[i] Serious evils follow from this: the family is divided by the fact that many mothers think they are obliged to work outside the home.  Poor housing has been identified as a major cause of delinquency on the part of all members of the family. It causes parents to place unnatural curbs on the growth of families. It takes a heavy toll by robbing the family of opportunities for developing and expressing the talents of its members. The real adequacy even of many new houses is open to question. Planners and builders appear to have been caught unprepared by the development in urban settings of larger families with greater need for more space, both in their houses and outside them.

III— Rights and Duties of Mothers

The regrettable spectacle of the mother working outside her home is a consequence of this housing problem and the economic difficulties of families. A recent survey of working women in Canada showed that one in four spoke of working to help pay for her home.  This was more than twice the number who mentioned all other specific material objectives combined.[ii] of other reasons given, "the great majority of the women interviewed felt that their families' economic position was such that unless they were prepared to forego all but necessities, they were obliged to work for pay.”[iii] 

Mention  of these facts is not intended as indiscriminate criticism of working women because, as Pope Pius XII has noted, it is useless to urge a woman  to return  to the  home "while conditions prevail which  constrain her to remain away from it.”[iv] The attack must be directed against the causes which, by taking mothers out of their homes, notably contribute to a breakdown of family life. The working mother cannot make her full and proper contribution towards satisfying the family's many other needs. She cannot be the leader she should be in the family's physical, spiritual, intellectual and moral education. Not infrequently her own moral integrity is endangered. But even in homes where the mother does not go out to work, the traditional family structure is endangered. Pope Pius XII has observed:

The daughter of the worldly woman, who sees all housekeeping left in  the  hands of  paid  help  and her mother fussing with frivolous occupations and futile amusements, will follow her ex­ ample, will want to be emancipated as soon as possible and in the words of a very tragic phrase 'to live her own life'. How could she conceive a desire to become one day a true lady…the mother of a happy, prosperous, worthy family?[v]

IV— Rights and Duties of Fathers

We have spoken of the abuses which follow from a neglect or distortion of the true role of motherhood. It must not however, be thought that women alone are blameworthy. In many instances, the mother is forced into the circumstances we have deplored. In others, it is the husband who fails to fulfil his family responsibilities. The father, as head of the family, has the right and the duty to provide for his family. Poor wages or unemployment leaves many fathers unable to do this properly.  All the resources of private and public institutions must therefore be directed to the urgent task of guaranteeing fathers a wage sufficient to meet adequately the normal domestic needs of their families as they arise.[vi]Beyond this social aspect of the problem, it is a man's duty to work industriously and to manage his affairs thriftily, so that all possible opportunities can be turned to the advantage of his family. Bad management, extravagant habits and irresponsible behaviour on the part of some men contribute to their families' sufferings.

Another factor undermining the welfare of families is the failure of many fathers to be leaders in their own homes. The shorter working week should provide opportunity for better mutual knowledge and familiarity of parents and children. Unfortunately, the opportunities which the shorter work week should provide are often lost through the second-job practice commonly known as “moonlighting”. Whether adopted out of necessity or in a mistaken appreciation of need, this practice not only affects the family adversely but emphasizes defects in the economic structure, as political, industrial and labour leaders have noted. The father should strive to be an understanding guide and friend, a loved and trusted parent to his children, a model of constancy and virtue especially to his sons, an example to be admired and followed. Thus, in harmonious co­ operation with the mother, the father must provide leadership in home education.

V— Research Needed

There is evidence of a great need for research into all social factors affecting the Canadian family. Many organizations are looking for something to do. One thing they could do is harness the talent in every community and encourages trained leaders in research projects. Again, universities annually require of their students thousands of term papers and theses.  The fact that few students are assigned to study and explore actual social conditions in Canada is reflected in the general lack of research material.

VI— Role of the State

Given the duty of fathers and mothers to improve the way they fulfil their roles, and the need for industry, labour unions, universities and all manner of voluntary and formal associations to do more for families—there remains a great and vital service to be performed by public authority  at every level of government. This, however, must be done in a manner consonant with human dignity. Family allowances in Canada are an example of the state's awareness of its duty to aid families. But families should also be assisted indirectly by efforts aimed at stabilizing the economy so that earnings and savings retain their real worth in goods and services, and by other means, the complexities of which cannot be treated here. Trade, monetary and taxation policies, legislative programs and public projects of all kinds have their effects, sooner or later, on the life of every Canadian family.

Since this is so, we urge government at every level to give high priority to the good of the family, in determining or implementing social policy and to recognize and respect the fact that the family has sacred rights prior and superior to any other institution, including the state itself. Thus aided and protected, families will be better able to model themselves according to the Christian ideal, becoming
…true centres of holiness,  where  the Lord is present with His graces;  where the members pray together, attend Holy Mass together and receive the sacraments together; where God's law is scrupulously obeyed; where every member works earnestly towards perfection, aided by those means which family life itself provides through the fulfilment of its own  duties; where the minds of children  worthy of the Church are formed; where love and affection animate parents and children alike; where the eyes of God rest gently, knowing that His Holy and adorable will is constantly fulfilled.[vii]

[i] Cf. Toronto Star, Sept. 9, 1958, p. 12.

[ii] Married Women Working for Pay, Dept. of Labour Publication, Ottawa, 1958, p.40.

[iii] Ibid., page 76.

[iv] Pius XII, The Duties of Women in Social and Political Life, Address to Italian Women, Rome, Oct. 21, 1945; English version in Catholic Mind, N.Y., 1945, vol. 43, p. 711.

[v] Ibid., p. 710.

[vi] Pius XII, Encyclical Letter on 150th Anniversary of Hierarchy established in U.S.A., Nov. 1, 1939, in The Papal Encyclicals, edit. Claudia Carlen, IHM (Wilmington, N.C., McGrath Publishing, 1981), IV, n. 6, p. 184.

[vii] Pius XII, Address to Spanish Family Clubs, Aug. 13, 1958, Osservatore Romano, Vatican, Aug. 14, 1958.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Contra the Bishops: A Canadian Defends the Holy Eucharist

PM Justin Trudeau, with wife Sophie and Quebec Premier P. Couillard
at the Mass commemorating Montreal's 375th birthday

How is it possible to foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?   Blood on their Hands

On May 17, 2017, at a commemorative high Mass in Notre Dame Basilica in the midst of gala celebrations for the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-identified Catholic, shared in the Eucharistic celebration, stepping forward to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He was served Holy Communion by none other than the Archbishop of Montréal, Christian Lépine, a Bishop who later justified his action by characterizing it as a “gesture of hope.”

Before delving more deeply into the substance of my claims against Archbishop Lépine—as well as against every other present-day Canadian Catholic Bishop—it is necessary to review some elementary Catholic teaching on the subject of “Holy Communion,” more commonly known in Catholic parlance as “Holy Mass” or “the Holy Eucharist” [but also referred to as “the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,” “the Holy Sacrifice,” “the Lord’s Supper”].

The biblical account makes clear: God alone is holy, man is not. Man, in fact, is unholy, a sinner. Again, history makes clear: Never approach God on your own terms. The terrible truth is that ignoring or forgetting, even accidentally, the law of God respecting His presence, is a fatal mistake. Witness the account of Uzzah in the Old Testament, struck dead for trying to steady the ark of the Lord.
“The anger of the LORD burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.” 1 Chronicles 13:10
The instruction of God’s Word is incontestable: Sinners are unclean and God’s command is “but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." 1 Peter 1:15-16.  The divine rule then is “be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” But exactly what does this rule comprise? How do we know for sure?

For a Catholic this is not a difficult question. We trust to the wisdom of the One True Church of Christ to interpret and counsel us in this regard. The Church has authoritatively spoken on the matter of holy behaviour and drawing nigh unto the Lord: We are invited to approach God the Father through Jesus Christ His Son in the Holy Eucharist.  
CCC1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
We don’t get to make our own rules.
CCC1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself [I Cor. 11:27-29] ." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
Again, for the Catholic, it is the Church who speaks for Christ in this world, and in our time. To follow Christ is to humbly follow in the Church for whom He died and to conform our attitudes, beliefs and behaviour accordingly. Of course we are free to choose to believe otherwise, and align our behaviour according to some other system or standard. But, in that case, when we resist the Church and her teaching, we do not have the option of insisting on the name Catholic.

The Church further explains the nature of the Encounter:
CCC1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
Let us be clear: This is no Protestant notion of Holy Communion. This is Christ Himself who comes to meet us under cover of bread and wine. It is not some symbol, simple or profound, glorious or mysterious, of Christ, but rather Christ Himself. It is not merely a ceremony of remembrance of Christ; rather it is the remembered Christ truly present. It is Christ Himself, with us, and worthy of the worship of God, yet present mysteriously in the bread and wine.

What then are the rules of this engagement? How must we conduct ourselves in the Very Presence of Christ the King of the Universe? For the good of our souls there must be no mistakes or misunderstandings!

The Church sounds out clear instruction and warning:
CCC1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, wife Sophie and Quebec Premier Couillard meet with Archbishop Lepine before Mass

Very well then, at an appropriate time before Mass, we must look inward, taking stock of our condition. This is what is referred to as an examination of conscience and its results will either clear us for Holy Communion or send us off to Confession, that the grave sin(s) confirmed in our exam of conscience might be confessed before a priest who stands in the stead of Christ and whose declaration of absolution then readies us for Holy Communion.

But what if a Catholic should object to this formula or otherwise trivialize the matter of grave sin? What if the Catholic were fooling himself on the matter, being deceived by devils? And what if the Catholic, while acting contrary to the formula—for whatever reason—were a prominent, public figure?

Ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the Eucharist from any and all abuses, including those just described, rests with the Bishop. However, the Bishop has been provided with guidance in the matter and is expected to respond according to well defined Church law. This is a crucial point: The Bishop has relatively little latitude in the matter precisely because of the magnitude of the potential damage arising from a sacrilegious Holy Communion [more simply, a sacrilege, otherwise known as a desecration of the Holy Eucharist]. And what is the magnitude of this sacrilege? The judgment of the Church throughout history concerning this most grave offense may be summed up by quoting from the Catechism of the Council of Trent 1566 (De Euch., iv.i):
“As of all the sacred mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Savior as most infallible instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which is full of holiness, or rather which contains the very author and source of holiness (1 Cor. 11:30).”
Let’s return then to the subject of the prominent, public Catholic figure approaching for Holy Communion whose actions appear contrary to the formula provided in CCC1415. How is the Bishop instructed to prevent the possibility of grave abuse of the Eucharist? Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides the rationale and the response. The text of the Canon is as follows:  
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Canon 915 identifies three different conditions under which Holy Communion is to be denied to a Catholic:
i. First, those who have been excommunicated e.g. the decision in 2013 by Pope Francis to dismiss Father Greg Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare him excommunicated because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church.
ii. Secondly, those who have been interdicted, e.g. such as the inderdict threatened by Bishop Robert Morlino of the Catholic Diocese of Madison against unruly parishioners in 2012.
iii. Thirdly, those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” [more commonly known in past times as the “publicly unworthy”.]
A 2004 memorandum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, explains in brief form the administration guidelines for Canon 915. Here is the most relevant passage for our purposes:
4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
There has been a good deal of disputation by Bishops regarding the denial of Holy Communion under the terms of Canon 915. A good many Bishops insist that the decision whether or not to even apply the Canon, at any time or under any conditions, is a matter strictly of the Bishop’s personal judgment, i.e. his normal right to “prudential judgement, “ thus setting aside the objective truths embedded in the canon. Thus do these Bishops shield themselves against any criticism of their inaction relative to Canon 915. Bishop Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois has spoken out in order to educate Catholics on the duty of all Bishops with respect to ecclesiastical laws:
“All clergy before they are ordained take an Oath of Fidelity which includes the statement, ‘In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it. I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.’ Pastors and bishops repeat this oath upon assuming their office to be exercised in the name of the Church. Thus, deacons, priests and bishops cannot contradict church teachings or refuse to observe ecclesiastical laws without violating their oath, which is a promise made to God.” [full text available here.]
Other Bishops in other dioceses have issued similar reminders.

A seldom mentioned authoritative source, powerful in its statement, beckons all those who wish to gain clarity over the din of voices on the subject. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 2004 memorandum discussed above, pointed already to this source: the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Although the context of the document concerns the admission to Holy Communion of Catholics who are divorced and remarried, the application of the principles of Canon 915 are on full display and the foundation of the Church’s teaching strongly defended therein. All those seeking to know the mind of the Church on the matter of Canon 915 are urged to read the brief judgment of the Pontifical Council. The Council, in the early stages of its document, sets the tone:
Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon's substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading.
In the wider context of Canon 915, a very important and recent discussion by canonist Edward Peters on the severe consequences of disregarding its divinely-rooted origins can be found here.

Claims against the Archbishop of Montreal

Having reviewed some basic principles of Catholic teaching on the subject of “Holy Communion” we must now return to the matter of my claims against the Archbishop of Montreal. These are the two claims: 

Claim 1: Archbishop Lépine transgressed the laws of the Church
Archbishop Lépine, in allowing reception of the Eucharist by the Prime Minister, transgressed the laws of the Church by sidestepping the provisions and mandate of Canon 915. To my knowledge only one news outlet reported the event in that light, declaring it to be an act of sacrilege. Others reported it in a very matter of fact way, drawing no attention whatever to its controversial nature. The Catholic Register, official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Toronto, included in its coverage of the anniversary Mass a statement that was truly oddball, at least in its very glaring omission: “Trudeau, who supports a woman’s right to abortion and whose government recently began funding abortion in the developing world, received Holy Communion from Lepine.” This was a shocking and scandalous disclosure, by any Catholic standard, but the lack of any related comment by the Register added further shock and disgrace. The Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, Thomas Collins, attended the commemorative Mass along with about 30 other Bishops and sat a mere few metres from the ignoble act. Was that a factor in this omission from his diocesan newspaper?

Claim 2: Archbishop Lépine spouted heresy
Archbishop Lépine seriously compounded his predicament through a series of heretical statements made to media sometime soon after the event. Here, drawn from one media report, is the essence of Archbishop Christian Lepine’s apologetic for giving Holy Communion to Justin Trudeau, along with my comments in red and in brackets. The Archbishop's words (with very minor adaptation) appear in italics at the start of each paragraph.

Holy Communion was a “gesture of hope.” [This statement represents a great danger to the Catholic faith. It suggests that the Holy Eucharist may be enjoyed by one whose communion with Christ is not only in doubt but whose outward behaviour overwhelmingly testifies against that fact. It views the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ only as a stepping stone of sorts to that true communion with Christ which, to the contrary, the Church says is non-negotiable in the moment. Instead, the Archbishop proposes that it is about what may be, or what might develop over time or merely what is desirable. If Holy Communion may be a “gesture of hope” then it does not speak of what is; it does not testify to current realities and dispositions. May we hear a word from the Church? “The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection.” #35. Ecclesia De Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II.]

Holy Communion was “to keep in contact and…to keep a bridge open.”  [This statement is but a continuation of the first thought, i.e. that Holy Communion is a hopeful gesture only, foreseeing some future attainment of a state of grace. The Archbishop reduces the Holy Sacrament to a kind of symbol that serves as a step in the process of conversion or readiness to meet Christ. He denies that it is to be in every case an already established communion accompanied by holy disposition.]

There’s a “distinction between the human being and what the person does, or says or thinks.” [This is a statement aimed at destroying the connection between free will and the chosen act of sin. It is a fundamental contradiction of the moral law, implying human beings must not be judged and/or censored on the basis of their thoughts, words or deeds. It also implies all human beings, regardless of spiritual disposition, are free to partake of Christ in the Holy Sacrament.]

We must “stay focused on who the person is, a human being called by Christ, called to true freedom.” [The subtle argument here is that our human dignity alone qualifies us to approach and receive Our Lord. Because Christ has called us to divine life we must be automatically & perfectly united to Him, regardless of personal choice. We are encouraged no longer to focus on a man freely choosing a host of evil actions that kill bodies and souls, but rather we must see simply a fellow human being called by Christ.]

“One of the difficulties is that we live in a dialectic of opposition, pressure groups against pressure groups, ways of thinking against ways of thinking, but behind that we’re all human beings.” [Here we are informed that we must break free of our identity group which imposes contradictory ways of thinking upon us and which keeps us from seeing one another as simply the human beings that we are. This is purely a call to abandon our Catholic way of life and the reality of objective truth.]

“Publicly, there’s a need for communication, and there’s been communication, but there are many forces going on in society, so yet again, it’s a matter of hope.” [This seems to be an acknowledgement of the need to resolve some difficulty, and a public one at that, with conversation, which is a giant step forward. But because society—and presumably conversation about those public matters—is complicated, there has been no resolution. Therefore, we must return to the “gesture of hope” argument. See Archbishop’s first apologetic above. But note well that the Archbishop is here admitting, on the one hand, failure of a process that is meant to restore a soul to good standing with Christ, and, on the other hand, nevertheless affording that same soul all the benefits of good standing! This is a dangerous breakdown in logic since what he advocates is unworthy reception of Holy Communion, which only compounds the grave state of sin of the individual!]

Regarding sacrilege, a distinction must be made between “the person and the acts of the person and what the person says.” [Again, we see the same argument as in a similar previous statement cited above. We are being informed that we must not judge someone’s right to the Holy Eucharist on anything other than the fact of being a human person. Therefore, we must accept that regardless of words or actions, every person, presumably every baptized person, may freely feed on Christ at Mass. This formula erases the concept of sin as well as any distinction between the grave sin that prohibits reception of the Sacrament and the grave sin of sacrilege that results from the profanation of the Sacrament. Since it is a denial of sin itself, it also denies the concept of sacrilege.]

It’s “going too far” if someone “feels to be rejected as a person.” [It’s true that in some settings and situations we might say that it goes too far to place restrictions on people that cause them to feel rejected. However, the context here is the Holy Eucharist and God Himself imposes His divine law on access to that Sacrament. The Church merely seeks to serve God in making His Son accessible to all men, but only in full accord with the express will of God, regardless of the feelings of any one individual, since God is not a respecter of persons.]

The challenge is “how to discuss what is said or what is done without rejecting the person as a person.” [Since there is no conflict between the law of God and the perfection of man, we can be sure that nothing God asks of us is actually a rejection of our person. The Archbishop seems to be denying this fact. He seems to be saying that when an explanation is given of Church teaching on the subject of the Holy Eucharist and particularly the worthy reception of that Sacrament, the Prime Minister might imagine he is being rejected, and that is an unacceptable outcome. Since a Bishop is called to govern, to teach and to sanctify, one hopes that he can connect the dots better than this. In the final analysis however, Canon 915 is suited perfectly to just this sort of impasse and it deals only with the outward objective condition of the Catholic’s public behaviour. It is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person.]

Regarding scandal, “it can cause scandal to the faithful if you cut someone.” [Is the argument here that there is no good or effective method to deal with scandal, regardless of how we govern our actions? If that is the case Our Lord left us in a terrible predicament, warning us at the peril of our souls not to offend the little ones while knowing at the same time that it was really impossible for any man to personally prevent scandal. However, it is possible that the Archbishop was saying something else. Perhaps he was saying that if action was taken against the Prime Minister in regard to denying him Holy Communion, that some of the faithful would nevertheless still be scandalized by such a serious action. But we must reply to that with a question: Dear Archbishop, is it better to obey God and be misunderstood for it, thus being forced to undertake better catechesis of the faithful or is it better to ignore God because His ways seem to put us in what we consider impossible straits?]

We mustn’t “lose sight that it’s a human being created in the image of God.” [This is basically another version of a previous argument already discussed above: “stay focused on who the person is, a human being called by Christ…” The argument denies the very Gospel of Jesus Christ since all men are human beings created in the image of God and have always been, from creation, exactly that. If that were sufficient basis today for any human being to approach the Eternal God then Jesus Christ need not have died for our sin and redemption. ]

On establishing contact with Trudeau: “The call is happening, but if you want to call, you have to be connected, you have to meet somewhere.” [The Archbishop is quite adept at vague language, leaving the listener to fill in the blanks as required. But this is another version of failure of resolution and the “gesture of hope” argument which we have seen in previous statements. This is what the Archbishop is really saying: “We’re working on the problem with our PM but if we deny him access to the Holy Sacrament it will rupture our connection so we have to go with a less than perfect solution, i.e. allow him to make a sacrilegious Holy Communion. This, by the way, is a near perfect picture of the new “accompaniment” paradigm being fostered by many renegade Bishops globally, which is nothing more than accompaniment in sin.]

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith [CCC2089]. In his statements given in May 2017 Archbishop Lépine clearly denies a divinely revealed truth: that the eternal moral code demands the recipient of Holy Communion be in a state of grace. Because he has made no other public statements or corrections on the matter since that date one might fairly conclude he stands accused of heresy, a state of obstinate denial of Catholic teaching.

He has also denied his obligation under Church law, specifically Canon 915, to deny Holy Communion to public sinners but that breach does not in itself constitute heresy.

Concluding comments

In the annals of unholy communion in the Great White North over the last 60 years or so, has a Bishop ever ventured to explain why he served up the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the nation’s at-the-time #1 public sinner, the Prime Minister himself? I suspect not. Whether it was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, or Paul Martin, perhaps we are only now getting a glimpse of what was in the minds and hearts of renegade Bishops who never once denied Holy Communion to the #1 public sinner of their day.

This latest blog posting then is merely a continuation of many years of reporting on the tragedy of heresy and dissent evident among the Catholic Bishops of Canada since the early 1960’s. Of all my postings, my article entitled Pastors And Bishops With Blood On Their Hands-Updated Version provides perhaps the single best overview of the calamity we face here in Canada. The article was first written and published for the Vote Life Canada blog in 2007 as an Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada and subsequently was posted also on the Inquisition.ca website. It was written in an attempt to understand the roots of the tragedy of legalized abortion in Canada and provides the background for a question I asked myself over and over again in those early years of being a Catholic convert.
 How is it possible to foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?
I can refer the reader to another more recent posting which deals very well with the same subject matter, but directed specifically at the failure of Ottawa Archbishop Terrance Prendergast to control the awful scandal of rising star Justin Trudeau in our Canadian politics: Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 4 Why Torture Canon 915?

Here's a question really worth considering: If Canon 915 applies to any public sinner in present-day Canada who might that Catholic be? Broaden the timeline now to the last 60 years: who might that Catholic be? Pierre Elliot Trudeau? The culture warriors of today would likely not consider the father, Pierre, to be more despicably evil than who the son, Justin, has proved to be. A number of Catholic Bishops have even weighed in over the years on what might happen "should ever an evil or wicked Catholic politician arise in the distant future to torment Canada with unjust and ungodly laws." Two of these well known, brave churchmen (whom I’ve tagged as the Two Amigos) are on record here and here as being ready to jump into the lion’s den and rout the enemy! Duly noted.

But not only have these Bishops not done what they said—and what the Church has commanded—they have done worse! Now they remain silent when a sacrilegious Holy Communion takes place by the highest public official in Canada, even when it takes place on national TV! Presumably they think they will be spared the discomfort of having to comment any further on canon 915! But as usual, they forget God. Such wickedness must be punished and will be! But in the meanwhile, until these Bishops face the Almighty on their day of passing from this world, Canada itself will pay a high price as the resultant moral evil spewing from renegade Catholic politicians spreads into the social fabric of the nation.

The following are some comments I’ve tweeted out over this past year on the sacrilege that took place in Montreal in May of 2017. I use the hashtag #Montreal375Outrage to identify the infamous event.

·         Since that blasphemous moment in Montreal not 1 of the more than 30 influential Bishops & 400 priests present, including @archterentius has spoken up to condemn the evil perpetrated at that event or to defend the teaching of Christ. #Montreal375Outrage

·         #Montreal375Outrage demands redress. Who is on the Lord's side? Archbishop Lepine @diocesemontreal ignorant of Church teaching on Holy Eucharist? Eternal moral code demands recipient of Holy Communion be in a state of grace. This was act of objective mortal sin & heresy. Both parties automatically excommunicated.

·         But how is this possible? Justin Trudeau is in #CommunionWithChrist according to 30 Bishops & 400 priests. Just ask @archterentius or @gclacroix or @CardinalCollins. They were all there 4 the #Montreal375Outrage; have never repudiated the action, no hint #Canon915 might apply.

·         #1EvilPM Trudeau can't B wrong. Catholic Bishops of Canada affirm that he is in #CommunionWithChrist. It's all on national TV, no repudiation to date. What R Canadians supposed to think?

·         Priests & Bishops who have not publicly condemned the sacrilege of #Montreal375Outrage endanger their eternal souls. Repent & make public your error!

·         The most pressing matter in Canada today between Bishops & the PM is Y there's not yet been public condemnation of the #Montreal375Outrage.

·         Priests & Bishops who have not condemned the sacrilege of #Montreal375Outrage endanger their eternal souls. Repent & make public your error!

·         During #Montreal375Outrage, Bishops degraded Eucharist to lowest common denominator, #PseudoCatholic trademark.

·         The Bishops failed to deal w/ the dangerous, evil behaviour of Canada’s #1 public sinner PM Justin Trudeau.

·         And only a fellow heretic would deny, either openly or through silence, that the grave sin of sacrilege took place at #Montreal375Outrage.

·         Trudeau publicly faced down the Bishops at Notre Dame Basilica. He (& his father the devil) will forever B their master. #Montreal375Outrage

·         I must have missed the part where Bishops expressed sorrow for desecration of Eucharist, now beg the Virgin for help. #Montreal375Outrage