Finally, Holy Family Parish In Whitby, ON Hears Homily On Evil Of Contraception

Yesterday I traveled to Whitby to set up my signs at Holy Family Parish once again. About two months ago I was there to highlight the scandal of a pro-abortion Catholic politician receiving Holy Communion on a regular basis. This time I was there to give a warning to parishioners about official teaching on contraception as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have been travelling to parishes throughout Oshawa and Whitby with this same message for the last couple months.

Recently Fr. Shenan Boquet of Human Life International had a very relevant commentary on this subject of contraception and the betrayal by clergy to teach the truth about it. His words are an excellent accompaniment to my protest.

Toronto Area Police Display Cultural Bias Against Pro-Life Witness

Chief Paul Martin says the DRPS is working hard to reach new recruits from diverse backgrounds

Unfortunately cultural bias in the Canada of 2016 is decidedly against traditional Christian morality, in particular pro-life and pro-family witness. In this posting I share the content of recent letters to the Durham Regional Police Services Chief and the Chief’s response. The letters speak for themselves but I will preface each letter with a short intro. I make public this correspondence for the sake of transparency in law enforcement, for the advancement of freedom of speech and expression and for the greater good of the pro-life community.

I look forward to the readers’ comments and reactions to these letters.

Intro: On May 28, 2016 I was displaying signs in Oshawa at Taunton Rd. and Harmony Rd. intersection as I often do on Saturdays. On one side of my sign was a graphic abortion image and on the other a related text message for passers-by.

June 14, 2016

Chief Paul Martin,

Durham Regional Police Services,

605 Rossland Rd. E, Box 911,   

Whitby, ON L1N 0B8

Dear Chief Martin,

I am a resident of Oshawa, ON. I am a former high school teacher and a retired pastor.

On Saturday May 28, 2016 I had an encounter with one of your officers in Durham Regional Police Service; or rather I should perhaps say the Durham Region Thought Police. I have video and audio on file of this encounter. Officer Lee, a motorcycle patrolman, conducted an extensive inquisition into my activity at Harmony and Taunton Roads, sometime around 2 pm, while I was holding an anti-abortion sign at that intersection. Mine was a completely innocuous law abiding exercise, although the sign, one which I have used for several years, was of a graphic nature. Graphic pictures of abortion evince a strong response from some individuals of the public, as they rightly should, since they portray the results of a bloody violent act against a fellow human being.

Officer Lee approached me asking what’s up and proceeded to inform me that my sign was very graphic and asking why I was on the street corner with such a sign, inferring that I was engaged in doing something wrong. I informed Officer Lee immediately of my Charter rights in regard to freedom of expression and asked him what, if anything, I was doing contrary to the law, but it made little difference to his modus operandi, which, throughout the encounter, essentially consisted of harassing me with his opinions and point of view. He immediately insisted that I produce identification, without even providing just cause for his intervention.  I told him I was reluctant to lay down my sign in order to get ID from my car because I’d been through this routine before and it served no good purpose but he was adamant and so I complied and went to my car while he accompanied me.

From that point onward a discussion ensued wherein Officer Lee lectured me on why I shouldn’t be exposing others, particularly children, to such images. His opinion was clearly favoring the so called right of “Choice” i.e. the choice of women to kill their pre-born children and when I countered with my opinion he kept insisting that “it all depends on what you believe…what you feel.” So apparently Officer Lee’s opinion took precedence in the matter and he was determined to press that opinion as far as he could, against my protestations. Then followed a host of questions about how many other times had I been stopped by officers in the past, why did I feel so strongly about the issue that I would hold a sign at this street corner, had someone in my family been affected somehow by abortion, why is abortion a personal issue for me, why don’t I protest instead outside an abortion clinic (Officer Lee recommended that as a better choice!), etc. During the questioning I kept reminding him that he was violating my Charter rights but he simply dismissed my protests with comments such as “How, by talking to you?”

After he had run out of questions and excuses he finally said, “I’m going to read your sign before I let you continue.” The other side of my sign had some text referring to Canada’s evil culture and again, Officer Lee was making it sound as though my right to say such things was in question. We walked back to my sign and then he started to write in his notes the words that were on my sign, interrogating me all the while on my meaning. I offered to email him a copy of the text on the sign but he declined the offer, continuing the interrogation as he went down the list of items on my sign. Clearly this was pure intimidation and animus. He never let up first nor last on forcing his opinions upon me, availing himself of every opportunity to demean or contradict the message I was delivering. At no time did I solicit his comments or his opinions, rather I tried unsuccessfully to have him leave me alone and allow me to get back to my business at hand. I protested, “I have a different opinion Officer and I’m allowed to have it. We’re not living in North Korea or in Russia…” Eventually Officer Lee could avoid the question of the law and my rights no longer, although he never conceded at any point that he was overstepping his bounds, and when I finally  insisted “Am I free to go now, Sir?” he replied “Oh, I’m not stopping you…”

What outrageous behaviour for a professional in the service of the public! But that wasn’t the end of it. He went on to take a cell phone picture of the graphic photo on my sign and then interrogated me on where exactly I had obtained that photo, i.e. the source from which I purchased it. I answered his question precisely, wished him a good day and returned to my sign duty.

On July 7, 2015, a little less than a year ago, the Kingston police issued a statement on Facebook and Twitter regarding pro-life sign protests happening in their city at the time (see media story attached to this letter). This was their message to the public:

We are receiving numerous calls regarding “Pro-life” or “Anti-Abortion” protests happening around the city. We are aware of the activity, and the graphic nature of the images on display. To this end, we have sought a legal opinion from the Kingston Crown Attorney, which advises that this conduct is not an offence under law, and is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically freedom of expression. We are aware that some may find these protests offensive, but we would kindly ask that you refrain from calling police to report.

A few years ago I was engaged in a perfectly peaceful and lawful pro-life activity in another city in Canada when I was seriously hampered and harassed by police officers without cause. I was strongly advised to file a human rights complaint against the police. I did not do so at the time and it would be a sad day for Durham Region, for Ontario and for Canada should I have to do so the next time a Durham Regional police officer misuses his authority and position.

Chief Martin, I trust that you will do everything in your power to ensure your officers are fully informed of the law regarding this type of demonstration and that they respect the rights of all law abiding citizens to express themselves, whether officers are in agreement or not. It’s simply the only professional response acceptable and it should be the only one tolerated.

Regards,

Attached: News article Vandal arrested after smearing black paint on graphic pro-life billboards

Available online at https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vandal-arrested-after-smearing-black-paint-on-graphic-pro-life-billboards

Link to Kingston Police Facebook notice

https://www.facebook.com/KingstonPolice/posts/10154038087484972

Info: By mid-September I still had not received an acknowledgement or response from the Chief of Police. For reasons stated in the second letter below I decided to write again. On this occasion I sent copies to other individuals listed.

September 18, 2016

Chief Paul Martin,

Durham Regional Police Services,

605 Rossland Rd. E, Box 911,   

Whitby, ON L1N 0B8

BY REGISTERED MAIL

RE: My Previous Letter Of June 14, 2016 Remains Unanswered

Dear Chief Martin,

I refer to my previous letter of June 14, 2016, copy attached, which remains unanswered to date, more than ninety days later. The letter demanded time and effort on my part and the incident which it described was quite unsettling and frustrating. Should it be altogether dismissed or unworthy of so much as a form letter by return mail? Although I did not specifically request a response, I certainly hoped to receive an acknowledgement of the same and at least a comment or two, perhaps offering some perspective on my concerns. My letter was hand delivered to a female staff person at your office reception desk.

I assume you received my letter but of course, without receipt of a reply, I cannot be certain. I therefore feel compelled to write this follow-up correspondence. I cannot help thinking that, had I been a member of the LGBTQ community who was reporting an instance of unjust discrimination or interference by a DRPS officer, my concerns would certainly have merited a quick reply of support and encouragement. Isn’t that what outreach activities relating to diversity and inclusion would mandate?  Am I or my politically incorrect cause to be excluded from the conversation exploring all the “dimensions of our diverse Region”? Is political correctness blinding us to the concerns of fellow Canadians? I can’t help but wonder.

With sincere regards,

Enclosure

cc.          John Henry, Mayor, City of Oshawa

Don Mitchell, Mayor, Town of Whitby

Roger M. Anderson, Durham Police Board Chair

Deputy Chief Chris Fernandes

Deputy Chief Uday Jaswal

Info: The following is a jpeg of the police chief’s response of October 5th. I was appreciative of the fact that he finally went on record with a response although it seems to me that he skirted altogether the facts of the matter and the concerns I voiced.

This is hardly the first time such bias showed up at my doorstep. However, there have been exceptions, this posting has further details.

When Bishops Betray: Court Decrees 40M Bubble Zone Outside St. John's Abortuary

Pseudo-catholic Rolanda Ryan, owner of child killing centre, 
with her lawyer in Supreme Court

Today, the CBC reports "Protests banned within 40 metres of St. John's abortion clinic"

A health clinic in St. John's has reached a deal with anti-abortion activists to ban protests within a 40 metres radius of its building. 

The Athena Health Clinic finalized the decision at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on Tuesday.

Would this be the same "health clinic" run by the same pseudo-catholic as I exposed in this blog posting in 2014? In fact, yes, it would be.

Now this entire tragedy spells S-C-A-N-D-A-L in a multitude of ways: scandalous that someone raised Catholic could ever contemplate facilitating or assisting in the murder of unborn children, let alone protesting in public a woman’s “right” to murder her children; scandalous that fellow Catholics could sit in pews and watch known baby killers join in the Communion line to desecrate the Holy Eucharist without rushing to protect the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege; scandalous that priests can’t/won’t/don’t stop it; scandalous that Bishops seem indifferent or powerless to address such abominations. 

These are some of the tweets I sent out in response to this disturbing development:

Battle to save pre-born babies in St. John's NL just suffered big loss. #PseudoCatholic abortuary owners delighted. https://t.co/vD5yhvuVAx

— Contra|Diction (@Contra1diction) June 28, 2016

Death doctors in #StJohns NL "so happy" they can continue 2 kill little babies w/ less interference, fewer obstacles https://t.co/19MkJb7xYF

— Contra|Diction (@Contra1diction) June 28, 2016

Where was #ProLife legal team? Protesters intimidated by courts into accepting bubble zone at #StJohns NL abortuary https://t.co/V9EuSUIRof

— Contra|Diction (@Contra1diction) June 29, 2016

Court intimidation yields "agreement" for 40M protest buffer zone around NL abortuary (killing centre) https://t.co/PsF0IBBw1S #KillGodsKids

— Contra|Diction (@Contra1diction) June 29, 2016

You see, when God's people stubbornly and consistently defend the lives of pre-born children threatened by abortion—as these pro-life heroes have done in St. John's, NL for decades—eventually the devil gets enraged and stirs up his minions, the champions of death, to push back and protect his territory. Because, you see, legal abortion is perhaps his greatest bloody achievement in the war against God and His Creation.

And when Catholic Bishops are indifferent, on a daily basis, to the evil of child killing taking place in their very backyards and, worse still, can't be bothered to intervene when peaceful, prayerful and loving pro-lifers themselves are under direct attack, you may expect the devil to make huge gains in advancing  Why wouldn't he expect a great victory in a spiritual offensive when his enemies are weak, apathetic and oblivious to the power granted them by their Lord and Master?

Imagine if Archbishop Martin Currie of St. John's, had taken to heart the scandal exposed in my posting of 2014. Imagine we had seen serious action such as I proposed:

...a front page notice in the local newspaper or the Archdiocesan website lamenting the fact that so-called Catholics who run the local abortion centre received Holy Communion inadvertently last Sunday at St. Teresa's parish? Did we hear that local Catholics were so outraged to discover this that they demanded from the Archbishop assurances that such a thing might never happen again? Did we subsequently see on the Archdiocesan website or the Archbishop's blog a statement from Archbishop Currie that such a disgrace would never happen in his Archdiocese a second time?

Imagine the Archbishop had arranged a meeting with the Ryan sisters to advise them of their standing in the Catholic Church in accordance with Canon Law and their automatic excommunication for their support and facilitation of abortion. Imagine he had impressed upon them the seriousness of their actions before Almighty God and the absolute impossibility of receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whilst living in such a separated, wretched and sinful state. Imagine he had, with godly earnest, perhaps even with tears, implored these sisters to immediately repent of their sins and be reconciled to Christ who loved them so. Imagine what a different outcome than the one we saw take place today in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Failing in his direct appeal to and discipline of the pro-abortion Catholic sisters, and every other reasonable effort to distance Holy Mother Church from the evil actions of renegade Catholics, the Archbishop might likely be forced into the most extreme Christ-like course of action required: joining the pro-life warriors in prayer and protest outside the killing centre and defying the intimidating tactics of the court. Of course this programme of self-sacrifice might ultimately lead the Archbishop to a night in jail but who in the province would ever thereafter doubt the Church's staunch opposition to the killing of innocents? Would even the courts dare pursue the Archbishop's prosecution?

But alas, we know only too well that Catholic Bishops have seldom, if ever, displayed such conviction or offered such sacrifice. And so it is that abortion continues to rob our nation of God's precious gifts. 

And so also, it would appear that we are one court case closer to the tragedy of a Canada where those opposed to the murder of children in the womb face immediate jail time for their public show of resistance.

Catholic Resistance Movement Counters PseudoCatholic Lies In Oshawa

Outside St. Gertrude's Catholic Church in Oshawa before the vigil Mass on Sunday past there was a great deal of traffic. Many hundreds of people were impacted by the signs. For more info on this campaign see this posting and this one too.

It seems more and more Catholics are calling for some kind of Catholic resistance movement. God bless them all, it's about time! But if these programs don't get to the heart of the problem on the local level of EVERY parish in a diocese, I suspect they'll amount to all heat and no light. Anyone who wishes to undertake such an ambitious project had better be prepared for huge backlash including personal attacks, character assassination and loss of income stream. Really, at the stage we find ourselves, only those who have worked hard to make their personal situations relatively invulnerable will be in a position to offer effective resistance. Nevertheless, even that person must be prepared for the likelihood of a serious hit.

By the way, I'm looking for someone who might be willing to carry signs (ground level signs can also be used) and conduct other resistance efforts in the diocese of Ottawa. I can provide full details if you'd like to email me or direct message me on Twitter. Email me at the following address:

Note to Catholic Bishops: The Relevance of Abortion In Euthanasia Debate

I have noticed that the Catholic Bishops of Canada seem quite worked up about the euthanasia mandate. Yet I can't recall one recent statement from them on euthanasia lamenting also the regime of the insufferable killing of preborn children. (Or even asserting the eternal consequences for a soul that kills a fellow human being). Perhaps they choose purposely not to state the obvious because euthanasia is the matter at hand. Why complicate the issue, eh? But what has been their excuse for silence for the past four decades?

In the euthanasia debate one can hardly overlook the relevance of abortion, and not only as regards the question of referral. (Which isn’t really a question: it is obviously illogical to refer for abortion and not for euthanasia.)  Insofar as our society thinks it morally acceptable to kill babies in the womb, it is certain to think that it is acceptable to kill the terminally ill, for it has already decided (i) that human life is disposable and (ii) that eliminating suffering or even inconvenience is a legitimate reason for its disposal. Such a society, note well, is equally certain to go beyond the notion that any suffering person may be killed if they wish to be killed, a form of violence that does not even rise to the level of abortion. It will come eventually to think that it is fine to kill those whom it determines are lacking any real justification for living, perhaps even those whose lives it deems inconvenient, whether or not they are willing. For that is the logic of abortion, a logic already well entrenched in high places. – Dr. Douglas Farrow [Source]

Why then are the Bishops huffing and puffing about euthanasia? We've all seen it coming for years and years. The best way to have stemmed euthanasia would have been to fight abortion tooth and nail, maybe even for a Bishop and Priest here and there to spend a night in the slammer along with little ladies and grandmothers.

Dr. Farrow has offered some advice to the Bishops recently:

Farrow also urged the bishops to clearly state that “formal cooperation with suicide or euthanasia, by analogy with abortion, entails excommunication latae sententiae” and to “inform Catholic officials that anyone who votes to create a euthanasia regime or to liberalize one” should “not present himself for communion and is subject to a just penalty,” even, “if need be” excommunication.

Of course the Bishops haven't done this on even one occasion in the last fifty years for pro-choice Catholic Prime Ministers, let alone rank and file Catholic politicians, who blatantly call for the destruction of unborn children in the name of a "woman's right to choose." Why would they do it now in the case of euthanasia, "a form of violence that does not even rise to the level of abortion"?

Much too little, much too late. God help your weak and cowering souls!

FLASHBACK: Canada's Catholic Bishops Place Low Priority on Amnesty’s Threat to Unborn Children

In light of the controversy erupting in Ireland over Amnesty International's sad abortion campaign, I remind readers that our own Catholic Bishops here in Canada did little if anything to push back on Amnesty International when it announced its new evil agenda several years ago. View the short video dealing with Ireland's challenge and then read the press release below.



---------------------------------------------------------

Vote Life, Canada! Reviews Annual Plenary Report of Canada’s Catholic Bishops—Threat to Unborn Children by Amnesty International Still Rates Low on Priority List

Toronto, ON November 7, 2007/Christian Newswire—“Tragically, news reports confirm Amnesty International (AI) has commenced abortion advocacy internationally,” laments Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada!“ but Canada’s Bishops maintain their laissez-faire attitude.”

In an August press release, Vote Life, Canada! complained that ominous indicators of AI’s plans, like threatening letters from terrorists, surfaced early in 2006. Yet this new global threat elicited simply a ho-hum “We’ll be disappointed” comment posted on the CCCB website in July 2006.

A short three months after posting this comment the Bishops held their 2006 Plenary Assembly which, insists Alcock, “should have been a beehive of strategic thinking for the Bishops to spearhead a powerful and effective mobilization of Catholics against the Amnesty move.

Yet official documents released after the 2006 Plenary Assembly indicate no discussion whatever of the Amnesty threat. Alcock is at a loss to explain “the tragic blindness and indifference of the Bishops to this worldwide threat to unborn children.” He notes this astounding failure was further compounded by the prolonged silence of the Bishops throughout 2007.

Incredibly, reports Alcock, “even since AI announced its official new policy in Mexico City in August past—while Bishops elsewhere in the world have been severing connections with AI—the Bishops of Canada have been silent on the matter.”

“Their silence still prevails, as it did in Canada nearly forty years ago when the abortion door cracked open in Canada.” Alcock claims the persistent call from Vote Life, Canada! has been the only voice on record in Canada holding Bishops accountable for their negligence in the AI affair.

Finally, last month’s 2007 Plenary Assembly announced the AI issue as an agenda item. Yet, exclaims Alcock, “The Bishops seem to be allergic to action when it comes to defending the Unborn. The item did not garner sufficient concern and consensus from the totality of Bishops at the Plenary and was referred to the Permanent Council for later decision!”

Referring to Amnesty International, the CCCB President was quoted as saying, “What a paradox that the smallest of human beings – unborn children – are now being put at risk by those who should be their defenders.”

“Paradox indeed but the irony of this statement obviously escaped the Bishop,” exclaims Alcock. “Who more than the Bishops of Christ’s Church are called to defend human life with all their might and influence? And what of those who take no action—or ineffective action—to stop the killers?”

Cardinal Collins And The Elephant In The Euthanasia Closet

Cardinal Collins has come out all guns blazing against euthanasia since his appearance before the parliamentary committee, about which I blogged recently. At that committee meeting an elephant (which regularly stalks the Cardinal, as well as his Ottawa counterpart, Archbishop Prendergast) showed up in the middle of the room but to my knowledge no other commentator gave evidence of seeing the huge beast awkwardly standing around. Since none of his more recent statements have addressed that beast I’m assuming the Cardinal has once again made the calculation to ignore the elephant altogether. Of course the elephant is simply a metaphor for renegade Catholics, especially politicians, who defy Catholic teaching and wreak havoc on Canadian society. At the meeting described, the elephant took the form of MP Brenda Shanahan and it was game on. Read my posting to get the full impact of the encounter. In all the flurry of huff and puff statements to Catholics and to the media these last few days, the elephant was nowhere mentioned by the Cardinal.

When Bishops make statements these days touching the public/political domain it’s a big deal. When they are seen to be doing anything to get the attention of society everybody wants to give them high-fives, particularly practicing Catholics who long to see the Bishops actually make a difference in the culture wars. Anyone who offers critical comment is vilified so I expect this to be another one of those times when I take some heat. Remember the last time the Cardinal spoke out on a conscience issue? Hint: Justin Trudeau was also in the news.

           

Let me say right out of the gate: I think Cardinal Collins and Archbishop Prendergast are humanitarians with considerable compassion for those that they serve. They are clearly gregarious people who greatly enjoy what they do and spend huge amounts of time in the service of others. Not a few would describe them as good guy Bishops deserving support in all that they do. Catholic media in nearly all cases portray them in that light.

But Bishops in their actions they are not, at least not in the traditional, Catholic sense of the word “Bishop”. A Bishop’s specialty is saving souls and getting people ready for heaven. He must be devoted to the kingdom of God and the righteousness of Christ. A good deal of public policy nevertheless intersects with this realm and the Bishop must accordingly address such moments, helping the people see the connection between their thinking and potential actions and their journey to heaven. A Bishop lives with the profound sense that all men are destined for heaven and so he embraces the entire population of his diocese—not simply Catholics—as comprising his flock and for whose souls he will answer to Christ his Master. His speech must be so tempered as to always reflect these realities.

The foregoing is the indisputable conclusion and tradition of the Church in this matter. It is easily summarized in Holy Scripture as well, being encapsulated well in 2 Timothy 4:1-5: 

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

I do not blame Cardinal Collins and Archbishop Prendergast solely for what lacks in their episcopal ministries. A significant share of blame must rest with those Bishops and Cardinals who chose them and elevated them from the priesthood. Some blame also rests with those who undertook their formation in seminary, and so on. However these two are very bright buttons on the tunic of today’s prelature, being very intelligent, well-educated and highly experienced churchmen. I ask myself, what possible excuse could they proffer for not living up to the promises made at their consecrations? Their years of wide ranging experience have undoubtedly clarified and solidified the implications of those promises. From my point of view a majority of their failures were simply (long-term) failures to uphold well established Church laws and precepts. Our nation has descended into moral chaos these past fifty years due largely to the same failures by Catholic Bishops as a whole throughout Canada. Such neglect will not be overlooked by the Divine Judge. A huge host, perhaps millions of souls, have been lost.

I will allow myself a short detour at this point for the reader’s early benefit. What am I suggesting that the Cardinal and Archbishop should have done, as opposed to what they did, in respect to recent pronouncements on euthanasia? I will suggest only one possibility that seems to me to line up with the authority and calling of a Bishop in these circumstances and at this juncture of time in our nation’s crisis. The Cardinal and Archbishop could have graduated from their standing as the Two Amigos to that of the Dream Team had they issued a bull of excommunication addressed to all Catholic politicians, Senators or MP’s who had in the past expressed public support of any kind and in any measure for the evil of euthanasia. Said bull would also give foremost attention, by name, to our “Catholic” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This bull would mandate that any such politician who felt incriminated by said directive could not be certain of pardon and restoration back into the Church without first making public retraction of their advocacy and without a satisfactory sit down with the Bishop. [Update: Although I initially stated in this posting that such an excommunication would be justified under canon law, that is apparently not correct. What is appropriate and what is fully justified is censure under Canon 915, which I have detailed extensively in a former posting related to Archbishop Prendergast.]

But no, these Two Amigos will do everything they can to gloss over the fact that influential Catholics in our society—and especially Catholic pols—are destroying the heart of our nation. Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 exposed the extreme split between the Gospel and culture in his address to Canadian Bishops, subtly rebuking them and warning that Canadian society would continue to go amuck “in the most disturbing of ways,” through neglect of the truth and of discipline. To watch these Bishops carry on their ministries you'd think it was impossible to ever find in Canada the men or circumstances that inspired some of the most censorious directives of canon law (e.g. Canon 915). We’re so good here in Canada, just a bunch of honest, righteous and ever-lovin’ souls. No one bad enough ever (at least in the last half century) to be denied anything, let alone Holy Communion! Wheee! We’ll never succumb to the evils and corruption of other nations. How wonderful! Being a Bishop in Canada must just be a piece of cake!

But take note! Should ever an evil or wicked Catholic politician arise in the distant future to torment Canada with unjust and ungodly laws, these two brave churchmen are on record (see here and here) as being ready to jump into the lion’s den and rout the enemy! Duly noted. Let’s face it, in the big picture—over a period of decades—it takes renegade Bishops to produce renegade Catholics, including politicians. They all express their infidelities in unique ways. What’s that you say? You’re not buying this “good bishop needs to excommunicate” theory? Then you probably know little about the pseudo-catholic hegemony of Canada’s ‘Catholic’ PM's. And you probably don't realize how the secularization of Canada has been brought about largely by the renegade actions and influence of highly placed Catholics.

So let’s return from our detour. What would we think of a fire chief who expressed concerns about bullying and safe spaces and who wished to adjust the design of buildings to reflect and effectively address those concerns? Suppose he called a press conference and made proposals? Wouldn’t we say he’s a little bit out of his line of specialty? It’s fine that he’s concerned and that he wants to make a difference in that area but many other specialists are working in that area and have devoted their professional lives to it. It’s not something to which he can make a major contribution. He should focus on his own specialty which is saving lives in emergencies and preventing and putting out fires.

It’s not that the Cardinal has no right to weigh in as he has on euthanasia, but let’s face it, there’s been a great deal of conversation about this evil for quite a few years in Canada. In fact this spectacle has all the trademarks of crisis management. It did not sneak up on us overnight as the Cardinal implied more than once. There are professionals in our nation, theologians, ethics professors, social activists, who have for many years made the case to the nation about the dangers of euthanasia. In addition, other countries have been plagued with the weight of this injustice and we have their records to help us put such crimes into perspective.

My point is becoming clearer I hope. No other person could do and say what a Bishop must and yet be taken seriously by those whom he addresses. Simply put, the Bishop’s focus is so intently on the welfare of souls that no other leader would dare to venture into his province, save heretics and madmen. If he is found saying things that can be said equally well by persons in other fields, he is squandering his office and his spiritual capital and few, if any, will be impressed with his message. He can’t simply show up on the airwaves one day pleading to be heard because he’s the Bishop and saying things you’ve heard lots of times before by lots of other people. His is a calling by Christ Himself to say and do in his diocese just those things as would Christ Himself in that same setting and circumstance. Only a Bishop can be up to such a weighty responsibility. But make no mistake, that responsibility is not solely determined at any moment by the prudential judgment of any and every Bishop. The Magisterium of the Church provides the framework for all who are interested in making an objective investigation into the success of any Bishop’s ministry and I believe the Magisterium precisely would demand an action by the Bishop(s) along the lines I noted in an earlier paragraph.

But when a Bishop does go on a life or death crusade (and euthanasia certainly qualifies as life or death for many) he is not to be found groveling at the feet of Caesar. He is not to whine about the pressure he feels from impending legislation or the encroaching secularization of society. He is not to plead for a break from Caesar, claiming religious discrimination or suppressed human rights. Why not? Well, because that is below his office. Think of the example of Christ before Pilate. There were no defenses, only a life offered up. But put more simply: it makes the Bishop look like a toothless cat crying out for protection. Is that the example provided by Christ? Nor is a phony kind of moralizing required: “Is that what Canada has become?” or It’s “an attack on people who do nothing but good.” What is needed is a Bishop who will, for the record, remind the nation of the absolutes involved and in black and white terms let people choose the fate of their own souls.

Does the Cardinal know the gravity of the crisis? I’m not really sure. Perhaps he does; he calls himself “a man at full tilt.” He seems to see the horror of the impending, new killing field. Yet, take note, he is not yet prepared to accept the measures instituted by the Church for just such times. He is not yet prepared to employ the censures of the Church against those renegade Catholic politicians who usher in such evils. Nor is he yet willing to make a public declaration that any Canadian that supports or otherwise assists in the legalization of euthanasia damns his/her own soul to hell.

Well let’s just call a spade a spade. The Cardinal—and the Archbishop—simply don’t believe these realities. That is why I call them both hireling Bishops. It’s not that they are in it for the money; it’s just that they are not in it for Christ and His kingdom. They simply do not believe in the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls; at least not in the traditional age old sense held by the Church.  I don't see how any other argument can line up with the abundance of facts facing us. Search the Cardinal’s recent public statements. His language in public makes no mention of it. He studiously avoids all words and imagery characteristic of salvation theology and there is not one reference in his remarks on euthanasia where he employs even the mention of “evil.” Imagine, his is a national audience by his own choosing and it’s as though there is no heaven or hell, no sin or evil, only the here and now. Tell me; is that the approach of an Apostle of Christ, after the Resurrection? A most devastating argument was his complete silence (as a pastor of Christ’s flock) at the recent hearing where he responded to a Catholic MP who practically taunted him while justifying her own betrayal of Christ’s teaching. He issued not a word of correction, let alone rebuke, for her explicit support of intrinsic evil.  Evidently the Cardinal has got too used to saying nothing about Catholics regularly participating in intrinsically evil actions.

Let’s look at the actions of the Two Amigos from a different point of view. With high profiles based on such factors as population, political importance, etc., these two set the pace for Catholicism in our nation. When they misrepresent or neglect the warnings and weighty teachings of Christ the whole nation reels and falters. Where has been the Cardinal’s new found courage for the last four or five decades on abortion? The effect of abortion on this nation has been much deeper and more traumatic than ever we can imagine euthanasia will be. Think how sobering the number 4,000,000 can be. Yet where have been the statements? I must have slept in and missed the memos. Sad to say, it never seemed to the ordinary guy that the Bishops visualized abortion as a challenge to the status quo of the education or healthcare systems. But now, with almost fifty years of killing to dull the senses, the chickens are coming home to roost. Suddenly we hear so much about doctors’ ethics and the ‘faith-based values’ of health care workers and how the government must respect conscience rights. Allow me to translate: euthanasia as proposed will disrupt the delicate nature of Catholic health care and not only endanger funding but perhaps the entire Catholic system. To be sure, a multitude of voices will be screaming at Catholic leadership to do something.  Strange, the little children aborted these past fifty years had no voices, faces, names or credentials with which to pull our heartstrings but now apparently we are talking about ‘real’ persons with names, lives, families, identities, qualifications. Now we must rise up and fight for their conscience rights. What about the conscience rights of babies? If we could have got inside their heads before they were cut and suctioned to pieces what would their consciences be screaming to us? What’s the greater injustice: forcing a person (physician, etc.) to do something against their will (incidentally only 30% or fewer of physicians even object to physician assisted suicide) or literally destroying another person’s life?  Somehow we’ve sidelined the right to life only to turn around and find ourselves worshipping conscience rights. For that we must thank Bishops like Collins and Prendergast.

“Has it come to this in Canada where killing people is seen as health care?” asked the Cardinal this week. Newsflash, Cardinal, those in power in Canada have been treating abortion as healthcare since the 70’s. Yes, they’ve also been funding it. Where have you been? The Cardinal called it a “fundamental change in our law.” Which one was that Cardinal, the one in 1969 or the one they now call the Carter decision? Does anyone else see these as sad and pathetic statements? Not only is this too little too late but, incredibly, the Cardinal makes it sound as though abortion has never taken place in our nation; he makes no mention of it whatever. He thinks people “will be appalled” when they find out the truth about euthanasia. I kid you not!  But if Canadians can live every day for fifty years with abortion without working up a sweat, why would euthanasia bother them? I call this kind of talk bizarre. Does the Cardinal consider abortion, in the pragmatic chamber of his heart, legitimate and settled law? Is it the one subject to avoid at all costs? One wonders what can be his thinking.

Both of the Two Amigos are now urging Catholics to do their duty and contact their MP’s. No joke. “Join or start a prolife group,” they suggest. May I ask what the prolife movement has done in the last fifty years to halt abortion in Canada? Could it be that stopping abortion has everything to do with the Bishops and nothing to do with the prolife groups? Here are Bishops asking laity to do their job again. “Take courage, do not be afraid to stand up for the dignity of life.” Incredible!  You’ll understand why I find that particularly ironic. When will they do their duty and finally put to rest the evil perpetrated by Catholic politicians obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin so that we, and all Canadians, may see a freer, more just society? Why does it come back into our lap, as though we, the laity, are failing to act? Talk about victimization. But it seems that’s only the appetizer. Archbishop Prendergast would victimize Catholic families a second time, the first time due to his failure to follow Canon Law and discipline renegade PM Justin Trudeau (BEFORE he became PM) and now a second time by refusing the last sacrament to Catholics tormented and confused in their last days by scandalous, contradictory messages in the culture (because of terrible leadership of Bishops). So, he won’t do the hard work and deny the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to a powerful political figure but he’ll tell his priests to deny the Sacrament of Anointing to dying people. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up! But not to worry, this Archbishop is all huff and puff and I’m sure after euthanasia becomes the law of the land he’ll grow silent on the matter. Already I sense the Bishops are equivocating.

Look at this another way: The Two Amigos ask us to fast and pray that our parliamentarians heed us. Did they heed their flocks over the years when the faithful appealed to their Bishops about shocking scandals taking place in the Catholic community centred around renegade Catholics denying Church doctrine, committing sacrilege, living scandalous lives, and otherwise living like devils, etc.? How many hundreds of letters, possibly thousands, during their careers, did they thwart, derail or ignore altogether? I know all my letters and appeals to Priests and Bishops about matters related to orthodoxy, scandal, and sacrilege went unheeded in my estimation, even though some were politely answered.

There’s more irony here too. The Cardinal is pushing hard on the primacy of conscience in all his statements and conversation. It’s almost as though it’s all that these post-Winnipeg Statement Bishops can do.  They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't support actual Church teaching on controversial subjects like contraception, homosexuality and abortion because they can all be said to boil down to "personal conscience" which is inviolable. (Doesn’t everything related to the moral law?) Catholics in the pews are so conditioned now to this argument that you'll start a war if you try to turn back the tide or cleanse the temple of its demons. This is why contraception and the teaching of Humanae Vitae is such an issue for the Two Amigos.

It is the business of Bishops to do the bidding of Christ their Leader. That used to mean following the precepts and laws of the Church, including the admonishment and discipline of sinners. If Bishops fail in this regard they make a grave omission and endanger the souls of all the faithful. Following the ripples outward, the entire nation is endangered. In fact if they fail to keep the discipline of the Body, the Church, the Body becomes weak and contemptible, unfit for duty and unfit to represent Christ Who is the Head. In such cases the Bishop has betrayed his calling and has repudiated his promises as an Apostle of Christ. The facts show that Cardinal Collins, along with Archbishop Prendergast, has done exactly that and I have called for (here and here) the intercession of St. Joseph, Protector of the Church, to accomplish the conversion or downfall of both Bishops so that worthy Bishops might take their places. 

No Mass Today, Our Priests Are All In Jail

Do the Bishops have the power to stop abortion, or don't they? Often I have tried to express the answer to that question in a more sublime fashion but no more concrete a rejoinder can be offered than the following:

A friend of mine sent me the statement below which he said was posted yesterday as a comment on The Vortex. This, my friends, explains it all. How many bishops stand on the podium at the March for Life like politicians? One of the reasons we still have abortion is because our shepherds have never acted like they believe the baby is the same as the rest of us. If they did, they would have been leading the sit-ins to save the babies. And if they all ended up in jail; there would have been signs on the churches saying, "No Mass today, our priests are all in jail." How long do you think abortion would have lasted if every bishop had acted that way?

Deadly Landscape Of Abortion & Contraception In The West

Michael Voris is hammering away these days at some incredibly pertinent cultural icons in America. Be sure to check out all his recent videos. 

Contraception has a very dark history that many people are not aware of…during that time period there was a very big push among intellectuals and leaders to legalize contraception: twenties, nineteen thirties and contrary to what feminist would have us believe, that contraception was about freeing women, it had everything to do with population control and eugenics… 

Letters to Bishops: A Scandal of Cataclysmic Proportions

Image source

The following letter was written a few years ago by yet another pained Catholic with a very urgent message for the local Bishop. It is reprinted with permission and with minor changes to protect the identities  of those concerned.
_____________________________________

Your Grace,

Greetings in the name of Christ our Lord!

Perhaps Your Grace will already know that I regularly take part in pro-life protests including some outside our own local parishes. My protests have met with a number of upset parishioners as well as a couple of upset priests due to the graphic nature of some of the signs. On the other hand I have also had a show of support from some parishioners, although support for my protests—or lack thereof—is quite irrelevant.

I wish to let Your Grace know that I intend to continue my protests but would like to provide Your Grace with the necessary background and understanding related to those protests. It is hoped that the enclosed letter will provide that important information related to my heart felt convictions about the “legal” destruction of human life in our province and in our nation. I believe the failure of Catholic Bishops to stop the slaughter of innocent unborn children in Canada is a scandal of cataclysmic proportions, a much more shocking and grievous scandal than any priestly child abuse scandal. It has placed Canada on a trajectory to adversity and collapse.

As my letter will explain, I hold the Catholic Bishops of Canada fully responsible for the status quo on abortion in Canada and maintain that the judgment of God has been pronounced against the Bishops and against our once great nation for the failures and sins of Bishops which originally led to legalized abortion and for the ongoing spiritual paralysis of the Bishops which sustains the continued murder of God’s little children. I believe that the Catholic Bishops could, at will, bind the demon of abortion which they unleashed so many years ago through their disobedience to Magisterial and papal teaching on contraception and through capitulation to worldly powers.

Perhaps Your Grace has seen through God’s eyes your own part in this awful crime and if so I pray that Your Grace has repented for your own share of the blame. If such is the case I beg of Your Grace to make such repentance a public act and undertake a campaign immediately to have your brother Bishops throughout Canada make similar public acts of repentance and the requisite penance in order to completely purge Canada of the demonic powers robbing God of so many of His children and to fully satisfy the anger of God. The Lord your God will then help and guide all humble Bishops to bring about a full cleansing in Canada of this devastating plague and begin to heal and prosper our parishes and our nation.

However, if Your Grace has not already made such an act of contrition and repentance, I pray that God our Father might grant you and your fellow Bishops repentance to the acknowledging of the truth and that as the Successors of the Apostles of Christ you might recover yourselves out of the snare of the devil, to the glory of God the Father and for the sake of the Church of Jesus Christ as well as for every human life divinely granted to mothers in this great nation.

Be assured, Your Grace, that although my words appear bold and brash I speak in the strength of the Lord and speak I must. I can no longer remain silent. St. Thomas Aquinas stated, “If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.” He also referred to St. Augustine: “On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: ‘Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger.’ But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.” [Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4, Sed Contra].

At this severe and aggravated stage of legalized child killing, any suggestion of a simple dialogue with me could accomplish nothing of substance. There is but one course of action for the Catholic Bishops of Canada and that is the course set forth. Furthermore, no campaign in the name of “social justice” can be counted as credible—let alone effective—nor bear any significant measure of God’s blessing while this atrocious evil continues, in the shadows and silence, to lay waste.

Be advised Your Grace that, although I do associate at times and in different places with other Catholic and pro-life groups, my actions in the formulation of this letter are purely my own, with no connection to any other group or individual, and I take full responsibility for them, God helping me.

Rest assured that I pray daily for the Pope, Catholic Bishops and Priests everywhere and throughout the Church of Christ.

God grant to you the wisdom and help of God that the scourge of legalized abortion in our land might be extinguished.

Faithfully yours
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 3 But He's A Good Bishop!

Consecration of Ottawa Bishop Christian Riesbeck
by Archbishop Terrence Prendergast

In the matter of the ongoing scandal involving “Catholic” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, I have insisted that Archbishop Prendergast step aside to make room for a worthy, obedient Bishop for Ottawa. At all costs the devil's stranglehold on Canada's "Catholic" Prime Ministers must be broken.

My detailed argument is made in digestible portions:

Part 1:  Archbishop Prendergast Now the Tip of God’s Spear in Canada

Part 2: Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 2 The Catholic Voting Bloc

Part 3: Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 3 But He's A Good Bishop!

Part 4: Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 4 Why Torture Canon 915?

What follows is part 3 of my argument.

But He’s a Good Bishop

What of those concerned Catholics who insist that the Archbishop is one of the good guys and some who say he’s arguably the best Bishop in Canada? Fair enough, I intend to explore some elements of that claim and put it to the Catholic test. But first a few more observations are in order.

If I believed Archbishop Prendergast was worthy of the mantle of Christ I would not have called for his resignation. Instead I maintain that he has been judged unworthy, not by man but by the Bride of Christ. It was Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who said of His Bride, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” I believe the facts will show that the Archbishop lacks the courage and/or will to cooperate with his Master in the fulfillment of this promise. His responsibility is to bind in accordance with Divine law and the law of the Church; Christ Himself will see to the binding in Heaven.

The evil that has been let loose on Canada by Justin Trudeau over the past ten years or so needed to be bound and contained. It did not happen. Now the mushroom cloud is in view. The Catholic Bishops failed in their duty to bind the demons empowering Trudeau. Perhaps the Archbishop believes the above promise from His Saviour to His Church; perhaps he doesn’t. I don’t know. But it is on record that Archbishop Prendergast wishes to consult with Archbishop Lepine of Montreal on the matter of discipline for Justin Trudeau. Perhaps after that consult he will want to meet up with Archbishop Durocher. Why not look instead to the directives of Christ and his Holy Catholic Church? You already have the answer, your Grace, if you truly wish to please Christ.  It's already been decided for you. Furthermore, you, as well as other Canadian Bishops, have already made reference on several occasions to Canon 915 and its application to pro-abortion Catholics such as Justin Trudeau. So why now the reluctance?

“The Canon Law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church” (Manual of Canon Law, pg. 3.) Canon 915 protects against sacrilege and scandal and if this law of the Church does not apply to Mr. Trudeau it applies to no one.

Crucial to a proper understanding of canon 915 is, first, the fact that it binds the ministers who admit persons to sacraments, not the recipients who approach the sacraments. Second, it both authorizes and requires [emphasis mine] Communion to be withheld from the faithful who approach under certain conditions, specifically “those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” To read canon 915 as if it were a mere suggestion or exhortation instead of a command is to disregard the plain text of the law.

…

Like canon 916, canon 915 works in part to prevent sacrilege, but it is oriented primarily to preventing scandal. In the Catholic moral tradition, scandal is not behavior that once known will embarrass or compromise the actor, but “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil,” as the ‘Catechism’ puts it.

In a religious society animated by ‘communio’ and possessed of few mechanisms for the external enforcement of discipline, the personal conduct of every individual affects the ability of every other individual to act for good or for evil. Bad examples in the Church have even more effect when ecclesiastical authority appears to be complicit with them by failing to impose any consequences. 

I will dedicate one of my next postings to a much fuller consideration of the application of Canon 915 but it should be obvious to the reader that I strongly maintain that Divine law, as well as Church law from the earliest times, mandated that the Minister of Holy Communion MUST withhold the Sacrament from those who meet the conditions of the Canon. It is therefore not optional in any way and it certainly is not a matter of the prudential judgment of a Bishop. The Archbishop has gone on record saying many things about Canon 915 and denial of Holy Communion that simply mislead and obfuscate and provide him with wiggle room.

I am not advocating that any Bishop rush to judgment on the matter of appropriate discipline for wayward Catholic politicians. However as I have outlined in Part 1 this national tragedy has been unfolding for more than 10 years. The Archbishop’s reticence reminds me of the Bible story in Matthew 8 when one of Jesus’ followers asked for permission to go bury his father. Those verses illustrate the  cost of following Jesus,

20_"The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."21_Another of the disciples said to Him, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." 22_But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead."

Apparently Archbishop Prendergast is not ready to lay down everything to obey his Master but wants others to first come on side, prop him up and provide some backup. He condemned himself in striking fashion recently when he said, “I don’t think you can make a judgment about someone’s faith position simply by what is said in the public.” For heaven’s sake, how long has Trudeau been in Canada and in Ottawa area? Again, as I explained in Part 1, he was elected an MP in 2008 and began to live in Ottawa In June 2013, two months after Trudeau became the leader of the Liberal Party. He has been causing increasing scandal throughout Canada since 2002 when he delivered a speech for the papal World Youth Day promo, saying "Church isn't about rules. It's about guidance." He urged the youth present to reject "old men with old ideas."

Wasn’t that long enough to discover his position on abortion, sodomy, same sex “marriage”, gender ideology, euthanasia? His statements were all a matter of public record. Wasn’t it long enough to know that he regularly claims to be a practicing Catholic who receives Holy Communion?  Wasn’t it long enough to arrange a sit down with him and discuss his conformity to Catholic teaching and the danger to his soul while he denies and misrepresents his faith? After all, the risk of serious scandal has been intensifying since 2002 because he was an increasingly powerful figure with high public profile. Let’s not imagine the son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau was escaping the notice of every Canadian Bishop for more than the last 12 or so years. What topics do the Bishops include in their Conferences and the Plenary Meetings if not serious matters like this? If Archbishop Prendergast wasn’t responsible for Justin Trudeau in the years preceding his ascension to Ottawa, some other Bishop—most likely Archbishop Lepine—was responsible and clearly that Bishop failed likewise.

By delaying action he has sent a message to Canadians that Trudeau is good to go; not such a bad Catholic really, certainly no great sinner. It might even be OK to vote for him. By not acting sooner it preempted any effort at fine tuning the CCCB election guide on the Ottawa archdiocesan website. As long as Justin Trudeau calls himself a practicing Catholic and as long as he participates in the Source And Summit of Christian Living, his communion with the Catholic Church—and with its leaders—will not be seriously challenged. Is not the Eucharist the preeminent sign of Catholic unity? This testifies to the spectacular and breathtaking scope of the scandal posed to the public. 

One is left to imagine that basically Archbishop Prendergast has been twiddling his fingers, saying his prayers and hoping it wouldn't come to this. I warned about the dangers of the Bishops not taking seriously the spiritual welfare of Trudeau, the renegade politician. This entire affair is all too much like déjà vu: remember Archbishop Gervais, Prendergast’s predecessor, and his support of former PM Paul Martin? Archbishop Prendergast take note: Canada deserves more than we got from Archbishop Gervais in regard to the treatment of renegade pseudo-catholic politicians who favour the destruction of preborn human life.

So let’s focus now on the subject of this posting: What of those concerned Catholics who insist that the Archbishop is one of the good guys? Some have criticized me for such a bold call to the Archbishop, accusing me of doing more harm than good.

“He’s one of our more orthodox bishops.”

This argument sounds impressive on the surface, implying I’m attacking the wrong side. However there is a problem today in Catholicism with labels. “More orthodox” can—and usually does—mean no more than the label “conservative.” But the fact is a Catholic is either “orthodox”, i.e. fully faithful, or not. One either lives up to the law of the Church and the demands of the faith or one falls short. If one persists in a condition of disobedience on any grave matter—especially a dogma—one is not orthodox; one may well be flirting with heresy. Our Lord Jesus gave us a powerful metaphor for this truth that is also a sober warning: a little leaven leavens the whole loaf. Yes, you may very well be “more orthodox” than the other guy but still short of “orthodox” and actually under the judgment of God.

To determine whether a Bishop might indeed be “orthodox” look to the example of a Bishop whose words and practice are consistently in harmony with Sacred Scripture and Tradition (age-old Church teaching). In our day and age, most Catholic Bishops in the West have succumbed to the poison of dissent and heresy in at least one truth of Tradition and that is the teaching on contraception. My recent posting “The Litmus Test of Today's Catholic Bishop?” expands on that theme and, being very relevant to the examination of Archbishop Prendergast’s record, is highly recommended. The takeaway quote is this:

If a Catholic Bishop wishes to save his flock from the snares of Satan and ensure they escape the culture of death, he must enshrine the truth and practice of Humanae Vitae in his diocese. Until he does every faithful Catholic has a duty to treat him not only suspiciously but as an unfaithful steward, perhaps a hireling, or worse still a wolf. To withhold judgment or criticism and especially to hold him up as an example—pro-life or otherwise—is to invite further scandal and to confirm that Bishop in his obstinacy and disobedience.

In addition, I pointed out in Part 1 a suspicious indicator of the Archbishop’s weakness in not following through on his stated convictions regarding Humanae Vitae. More detail can also be found in this posting from January 2014 where I expressed my dismay and disappointment in this way:

It’s very sad indeed that after all the early huff and puff of this episcopate our hearts are now down in our boots. What appeared to be a zealous and courageous Bishop-teacher, even a fearless enforcer of Catholic orthodoxy (God knows how badly we need one), turns out to be powerless to stop the most basic kind of dissent and heresy in his own parishes.

Another equally controversial challenge to Tradition in our day pertains to the application of Canon 915 which has been lightly touched upon earlier in this post. Almost daily we see the festering outrage of the Catholic faithful. A number of faithful, “orthodox” Bishops in the West have weighed in over the past 20 years or so in order to address the extreme scandal and destruction to the common good triggered by pro-abortion and other renegade “Catholic” politicians like Justin Trudeau. These Bishops provide us with not only a trustworthy example of Tradition in action but also scholarly works detailing the historical and theological foundations. I have featured many of these types of examples over the years on this blog but one in particular in 2014 was dedicated to the urgent need to help Justin Trudeau save his soul and it referenced this very valuable document by Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, DD., Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas.

No Catholic should therefore be automatically impressed with Bishops who are said to be “very orthodox” or “more orthodox” because it generally would be more accurate to call them “almost orthodox” i.e. “almost Catholic” which should make one want to run in the other direction.

“You're crazy. He's arguably the best bishop in Canada.” 

The crazy part I will let God sort out. True, he may very well be the “best” Bishop in Canada. Archbishop Prendergast is a highly educated and accomplished Jesuit. Latin Mass enthusiasts are grateful that he supports the FSSP parish located in Ottawa and at times publicly celebrates the Traditional Latin Tridentine Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962. Former Anglicans tout him as one of their strongest supporters of the Ordinariate enterprise. Both of these groups emphasize very reverent and traditional liturgies as well as traditional Catholic teaching. In an effort to return to the true and historic purpose of Catholic funeral rites, the Archbishop cracked down on eulogies at Catholic funerals and he also circulated a letter recently asking that everyone kneel for the entire Eucharistic prayer. He strongly supports pro-life activities and the March for Life and is credited with bringing other Bishops alongside at that annual March. Regarding this year’s Truth and Reconciliation report the Archbishop took an uncommon position and defended the Church and residential schools which seems to me to be the response you ought to expect from a Bishop. He often makes public statements which emphasize adherence to Catholic teaching and the importance of tradition.

However, I was appalled by his silence in June past of this year as an openly homosexual Catholic priest in Ottawa harshly and rudely slandered Cardinal Burke, all without public rebuke by Archbishop Prendergast. I’m also amazed at the continual stream of reports of renegade “Catholic” actions by the Ottawa Catholic School Board to which I have previously referred. These are not congruent with a reputation calling for adherence to Catholic teaching. Something is definitely amiss in this picture.

The Archbishop certainly deserves credit for all good things he has done to promote and defend the Church and her teaching but this is precisely his job. It’s what all Catholic Bishops signed up for. Also, good actions do not cancel out bad actions and the bad always yield its own fruit—today, tomorrow or far into the future. Serious failures by Bishops scandalize great numbers of people and cause people to stumble and fall and to leave the faith. They can also pave the way for charges of hypocrisy, bring discredit to the name of Christ and bring ruin to our nation. The position of Successor of the Apostles is a weighty position indeed. Their serious failures, like serious sins in the life of the ordinary Catholic, likewise require confession and must be Humble, Complete and Accompanied by Firm Purpose of Amendment. As Catholics every one of us is always being called back to obedience to Christ and to His teachings—as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Others who insist that the Archbishop is one of the good guys are framing their criticisms like this:

No man is perfect. Everyone has their weaknesses so what's the big deal?

The big deal is that thanks to the Archbishop's ineptitude and hesitation (to put it mildly) there has arisen in the highest chambers of power in Canada a powerful voice of the enemy of the Church, an enemy of the family and a terror to the unborn child. Is that a big enough deal? And this renegade “Catholic” can now continue the destruction of the common good that has characterized his fellow pseudo-catholic Prime Ministers since the 1960’s.

The Archbishop is a victim himself.

“There's not much he can do at this advanced stage of societal sickness and Church corruption.  He had nothing to do with Winnipeg Statement. He wasn't a part of it. He's against it. It's too much to expect him to start turning back the clock. Nobody wants to go back in time anyway. He realizes things aren't going to change overnight. He's making incremental changes to bring everything up to snuff, developing good liturgy and trying to encourage some measure of discipline in the liturgy, emphasizing catechetics and knowing your faith. Eventually the old guard will be gone and he can move more aggressively at a later date. For now he's limited.”

Ah, yes, incremental changes, like our pro-life movement sometimes claims…and still 100,000+ perish yearly. Head in the sand anyone? The problem is Trudeau the younger is not the old guard. He's young and upcoming just like millions of more Catholics in Canada who fancy him.  They have souls that need saving. Some Bishop has to serve up the cold hard truth at some time in their lives; the earlier the better while time is on their side. After all, the Supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls...everyday.

Leave the Archbishop alone. He knows what he's doing and oftentimes Bishops have to work behind the scenes.

I’m not accusing the Archbishop of not knowing what he is doing and I’m certainly not questioning his right to make his own prudent decisions. I’m saying that he is going against the laws and Tradition of the Church in not dealing specifically with scandal, heresy and in general with the fullness of Church teaching.

You'll get little or no support from traditional minded Catholics in this campaign.

“There are lots of other Bishops in Canada who are far more liberal minded than Ottawa’s Archbishop and who are destroying the faith with their liturgical abuse, activist positions on woman's ordination, etc., etc. Why don't you pick on them and leave Prendergast alone?”

It seems to me that Catholics using the various arguments listed may well be admitting that they are not up to a battle. They have no heart to fight for their faith. That is in fact why their faith is being taken from them. They simply want an easy life and they'd prefer if their children would do their fighting for them—and maybe also pay for their thriving lifestyle as well. They’ll (unwittingly, let’s hope) pass everything off to the next generation. This is also called lukewarmness and God has something to say about that.

We are losing our faith. Secular society is pressing us more and more into a corner as the leaven of wickedness spreads throughout our nation. Do we want a healthy and strong Church to pass on to our children? In order to accomplish this we must be vigilant and oppose every cleric whose modus operandi is not in full agreement with the Magisterium of the Church. Honestly, that’s all we’ve got to guide us and our children through these troubled waters and attain unto our eternal salvation. Any compromise could well be fatal.

Since the Synod we've heard calls for war. "We must fight. No longer will we just go along."  "We must question everything, demand the true teachings of the Church, and press the hierarchy—many of whom are corrupt and incompetent." But at the first sign of a skirmish some tough-sounding Catholics are ready to accept any excuse to back away from a fight. Apparently there are a lot of paper tigers on the net. How do I know: very few links to this series of postings, hardly any retweets, etc. Where’d all our fighters go?

The last point I will offer to those arguing for hands-off-Archbishop-Prendergast is by way of the following analogy.

Imagine a man who does a good job every day at work. All those that work with him express respect for him and the job that he does. This man also does his share of volunteer work at the food bank and at the soup kitchen as well as serving on a few Church committees. But because he doesn’t believe in putting locks on his doors strangers come into his home and abuse his wife and children, sometimes even when he is there. Since he can’t bring himself to offer any resistance to these strangers he is of little help to his family, some of whom suffer daily from the abuse. Furthermore these tyrants spend time in the basement doing things that undermine the foundations of his house. He takes no action only to make occasional criticisms. Perhaps he thinks the house will survive for many years yet and no action is yet required. Perhaps he thinks his family will survive the ordeal even though there’s much pain. Besides, it’s hardly worth a fight, he thinks, and if there were a fight he may get hurt or other members of his family.

What are we to think of such a man? Will we focus only on the good that he does and ignore his failings? Will we give him a free pass? I say no. Some failings are so egregious as to be defining actions of a man's character and reputation. This man has the means and he has the law on his side. If he refuses to protect his innocent family would you not accuse him of being not only negligent but in some sense materially complicit? Authorities might in fact pronounce him an unfit father and take his children from him, along with his wife and place them in a safe house somewhere. Was he being a good father to his children? Would you rate him “one of the best” fathers because of all the other good things he does?

Some may say this is a misplaced comparison with the Archbishop’s behaviour but I say it is a near perfect fit. The Archbishop does in fact have a duty to protect his family, his children, his flock. He MUST shut out the abuser and the renegade so they can no longer rob, defile and abuse his family and undermine the foundations of the Catholic faith. No doubt he would face a firestorm of sorts from various parties, the greatest challenge being perhaps to summon the courage to break from his brother Bishops at the liberal and corrupt CCCB. I can only imagine the straitjacket they’ve put him in; and perhaps not only on this matter but also if he goes public with a major campaign in support of Humanae Vitae. After all, a big part of the reason Bishops find it hard to crack down on Trudeau must be the moral incoherence involved. Arguments in favour of conscience from the Winnipeg Statement go far to explain the failure to discipline regarding contraception and the attendant failure to address the sacrilege of Catholics who dissent from Humanae Vitae. And those realities resemble closely the challenge of imposing biting sanctions on our new Prime Minister.

But I would remind the Archbishop that when he stands before Christ on that day, the CCCB will not be alongside, nor his fellow Bishops, nor his most respected advisors. Archbishop Prendergast, will you do what Christ requires of you in this grave matter affecting many lives? If not, resign and make way for a worthy Bishop.