Sunday past, August 28, 2016, I headed out to Holy Family Parish in Whitby
to educate parishioners on Church teaching in regard to pro-abortion Catholics
and Holy Communion. Liberal MP Celina
Caesar-Chavannes self-identifies as a practicing Catholic and receives Holy
Communion at Holy Family parish, yet she publicly supports abortion,
euthanasia, same sex “marriage”, LGBTQ lifestyles and transgender "rights". Some parishioners have
complained to the parish priest, Father Laszlo Nagy, about this scandalous
situation but to no avail.
[Unfortunately scandals associated with Canon
915 are rife in today’s Catholic Church in the West. On the same day that I
made my case outside Holy Family parish, a group of fellow Catholics were protesting
at the parish attended by US Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Sen. Tim
Kaine. See coverage here,
here
and here.
These Catholics are on the cutting edge of a true reformation urgently needed
in today’s Catholic Church. There should have been hundreds, even thousands of
Catholics who appeared in that protest.]
Father Nagy shows up in the video at about the 14 minute
mark but unfortunately it was not the pleasant type of introduction that I would
have wished for. I was obviously still quite agitated at that point by the
parish ladies who, just a few moments prior, were intent on knocking over my
sign. Sadly, this priest seemed entirely unconcerned with my message and instead
inferred, over and over, that I was doing something wrong in using his name on
my sign without his permission!!! God help us! We are in a grievous state indeed!!
UPDATED August 31st
Catholic MP Celina C-Chavannes tweeted out the following in the early hours of this morning:
@Contra1diction I no longer attend Holy Family. There. You win! Now you can take that victory w/ you all the way to judgement day. Congrats!
Allow me to clarify: A pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, pro-same
sex marriage, and pro-euthanasia “Catholic” politician in our Archdiocese regularly
attends Mass and is served the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the
parish priest.
So what’s the big deal? A majority of Canada’s Catholics
qualify for the label pseudo-catholic
and yet they are still offered Holy Communion in their parishes (it’s still sacrilege
though).
True. But here I’m talking about a Catholic who has high
public visibility, an elected Member of Canada’s Parliament who represents the
Whitby riding. It’s technically safe to call her, in Catholic parlance, a
public sinner.
Who is Celina Caesar-Chavannes?
Celina R. Caesar-Chavannes MP is a Canadian Liberal
politician, who was elected to represent the riding of Whitby in the House of
Commons of Canada in the 2015 federal election.Wikipedia
She is also Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister. Yes, correct, that Prime Minister, pseudo-catholic Justin Trudeau. Take note then, she has been appointed to speak
on behalf of Justin Trudeau! (Is there any chance he would have chosen a
secretary to speak for him who has views contrary to his on crucial messaging?) In fact, she gives every evidence of being a veritable clone of our current PM.
I will refer to Ms. Caesar-Chavannes for the remainder of
this posting as CRCC.
CRCC attends Holy
Family Parish in Whitby, ON. She regularly presents for Holy Communion.
What are the political facts about CRCC?
Pro-abortion
She is a Liberal MP in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet and all his
MP’s are under a mandate to vote pro-choice. In May 2014, a year prior to CRCC’s election
victory, Trudeau said,
“Candidates who oppose abortion are barred from running in the Liberal Party’s
‘open’ nominations for the 2015 federal election.” We can only assume CRCC
votes in favour of the status quo on abortion in Canada. She supports a woman’s
“right” to kill her unborn child.
Pro-sodomy
On June 1, 2016, CRCC posted the following on her Facebook page:
I was honoured to join Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today as he raised
the Pride flag on Parliament Hill. He reminded us that there is still much work
to do to - and that we are all responsible for doing our part.
She included the link to the CBC
storyPrime Minister Justin Trudeau
raises a Pride flag on Parliament Hill for the first time in Canadian history
as well as embedding the CBC video on her timeline.
Pro-transgenderism
On May 17, 2016, CRCC posted the following
on her Facebook page:
Today is about hope, change, & the understanding that as Canadians
we should all feel safe to be ourselves. Very proud of our government and Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau today, and thankful to the countless people who
continue to work hard to eliminate homophobia and transphobia.
On May 3, 2016, CRCC posted the following
on her Facebook page:
Last night I spoke in the House about Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in
Dying. It was an honour to stand up in support of this important legislation.
This bill has amplified the discourse about life and about death. I am thankful
to all who participated in the preparation and tabling of this document.
She featured a video of her speech in the House of Commons (also
posted
same, with text, on her official MP website) summarizing the government’s
position on Bill C-14, noting particularly that she was “proud” of the
government bill. She even touted her bona fides as a “person of faith” in
assessing the positive nature of the new suicide paradigm (sounds
familiar), also citing her meeting with St. John the Evangelist Catholic
parish in Whitby over concerns about conscience rights of physicians. Of
course, she insisted, her government would never trample conscience rights!
(except when it came to MP’s voting pro-choice!) She waxed eloquent about how
the work on C-14 “challenges us all to examine our fundamental beliefs about
life and about death.”
Pro-same-sex “marriage”
There was no direct reference that I could find on CRCC’s
Facebook page to support the conclusion that she is in favour of sodo-marriage.
However, given her very close position as spokesperson for PM Justin Trudeau,
her membership in the Liberal Party of Canada—the party that pushed through
this insult to God and marriage—and her other publicly stated positions on
homosexuality and LGBT rights, it is only reasonable to assume she supports
same-sex “marriage” as well. Of course if I am wrong on this point I will
certainly amend this paragraph with an update to that effect.
What is CRCC’s status as a Catholic parishioner?
I do not know this woman personally and so I rely heavily on
my sources. She is a regular parishioner at Holy Family Parish in Whitby, ON.
She regularly participates in the celebration of Holy Eucharist, publicly
receiving Jesus Christ without restriction or censure. She has been questioned
at times about her political affiliation and her support of policies and
positions identified by the Catholic Church as grave evils. Rather than
engaging in any reasoned discussion, she provides no explanation whatever for
her public dissent but instead insists that judging is contrary to the Bible.
The parish priest is well aware of the concerns that
faithful Catholics have in regard to CRCC’s dissent from Catholic teachings and
the scandal generated thereby. He is also aware of the strong objections that
some have to CRCC partaking of the Holy Eucharist while obstinately persisting publicly
in a condition of grave sin. (Canon
915 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law insists that such public sinners are
NOT TO BE ADMITTED to Holy Communion.) Perhaps the priest, like CRCC herself,
believes in the mantra that “we should never judge others” or perhaps he
believes in the heresy that has infected CanChurch since the Catholic Bishops’ 1968
Winnipeg
Statement, that of “conscience
rights.”
No doubt it would be a bombshell going off in his parish and
in his personal career if he decided to deny Holy Communion to such a high
profile politician. Is that why he continues to ignore Canon 915 or is it
because the status quo in the Archdiocese is to never seriously address any
grave evils in the lives of the faithful in respect of administering Holy
Communion, let alone that of public sinners. This appears, increasingly, to be
the modus operandi of Cardinal
Collins. Why then would any of his priests bother to make grave sin an
issue or to protect the Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege?
But the fallout from such cowardice and betrayal is of
nuclear proportions. Faithful Catholics are so scandalized by repeatedly
witnessing such sacrileges that the Holy Spirit within them becomes vexed and
grieved and they see no alternative but to leave their parishes. But where do
they go to find a community of true believing Catholics? They can easily become overcome by doubt and
cynicism and cease Church-going and their public worship.
Even now the scandal at Holy Family parish in Whitby is
taking an extreme toll on serious minded Catholics and some are already
preparing to leave.
What does the future possibly hold for CRCC?
CRCC is a very savvy politician. I would describe her as one
who has a sixth sense about her job. Her political instincts are sharp, powerful
and quite competitive. She is a gifted communicator and is extremely effective
with social media and getting her message across. The feedback she receives
from constituents and interested parties in general is almost universally
positive and even extraordinary. In short, if they don’t love her they at least
regard her as a very impressive, committed and authentic politician, one possessed
of great compassion and care for her community.
I hasten to add here that any gifts that CRCC possesses in regard
to serving her fellow man are gifts given to her by God through the Holy Spirit
at her confirmation. She is obligated, again by that same Holy Spirit, to use
those gifts in accord with the laws and statutes of Christ’s Holy Catholic
Church. She has NO freedom to use them as she pleases. In this connection we
see the great sin of Canada’s Catholic Bishops who refuse to teach the fullness
of the Catholic faith and to properly
form the consciences of the faithful. Their omission to do so, and their
refusal to discipline wayward and renegade souls, particularly Catholic
politicians and other influential public figures, has resulted directly in the
creation of a false counter-church—a pseudo-catholic culture—within the bowels
of Canada’s true Catholic Church.
In a recent interview
with CRCC, Global TV broached the subject of a possible future run for Prime
Minister by the rookie politician. We learn from that interview (and others)
that CRCC recovered from a very low turning point in her life when she cried
out in prayer and with tears to God for help. She credits her future in
politics, at least partly, with the unfolding of God’s answer to her prayer. Unfortunately
God is not the only one battling for souls and the problem is if the Bishops
don’t address their failures in forming the minds and hearts of CRCC and the rest
of Canada’s faithful, we may very well be watching the making of another pseudo-catholic
Prime Minister.
It’s all on the Bishops
Some of us could see
it coming with Justin Trudeau for many
years. The Bishops apparently couldn’t or simply didn’t care (sufficiently).
Through their denial of Canon law and other select
Church teachings we see they prefer to do crisis management and now those
that seem to care are running mad and scared.
God equips His people with great and fearful gifts, in order
that His Body might be built up and Christ glorified in our world as King. Then
He passes these souls over to the Bishops in order that they might be trained
and put into His Service. When the Bishops fail in their responsibilities then
Satan wins by default. Through the indoctrination of culture and the world and
through the weakness of human flesh, Satan already has a stupendous foothold in
the lives of every individual not on a steady path of daily conversion to
Christ. Catholics like CRCC and Justin Trudeau, although very likely culpably
ignorant, believe they are doing the best they can for their families, others,
and the nation but too many are actually in the service of their father the
devil. Unfortunately, priests and their Bishops, immobilized by fear and
confusion, are doing little to correct them on their deadly path, and, may one
day join them in Hell.
The failure of Archbishop Prendergast to redress scandal
Renegade “Catholic” politicians, as well as scores of key
public officials, like CRCC could be saved from the destructive path of
dismantling the moral fabric of Canada if only Archbishop
Prendergast would take seriously the charge he has from Jesus Christ and
His Church. Canon law demands that public sinners be denied Holy Communion for
just such a reason as we currently see in the CRCC scandal. If the Archbishop
were to PUBLICLY apply—as indeed the spirit of the canon demands and as I have argued
he ought to—the censure of Canon
915 with respect to the most powerful antichrist “Catholic” in Canadian politics,
our very own PM Justin Trudeau, it would be a powerful antidote, and rebuke, to
other pseudo-catholics like CRCC and cause them to think very carefully and
seriously about not following in the same path. It would also embolden the local
priests to follow his example and apply some much needed discipline to the
lives of the most rebellious public sinners in their parishes.
Instead of idolizing and cozying up to the most notorious
pseudo-catholics in Canadian history,
wayward Catholics might be more inclined to shun them altogether, to the
eternal good of their souls.
Ah, but the judges derive their authority from the Carter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada, a vague, milquetoast document promulgated under the dismantler of just-about-all that was great about this country, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in 1982, whose son now sits in the same seat as his father. This Charter functions as our constitution, and its very ambiguity is a source of all sorts of evils. [The Totalitarian Imposition of Euthanasia in Canada]
Here in one short paragraph we find a confluence of ideas that illumines so much of the discussion about the demise of our once great nation. "Catholic" Prime Ministers of Canada, all of whom have been endorsed by at least one or more Catholic Bishops, have dismantled the moral fabric of our country with impunity, one law at a time. In fact, our current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, having displaced the nine year "interim" Protestant leader Stephen Harper, now resumes the 38 year reign of Catholic PM's who have ruled over Canada and already shows promise of outdoing all his predecessors.
We are now on the verge of legalizing murder-suicide, prostitution and recreational drugs, all under a Prime Minister and his Cabinet with a deplorably skewed moral agenda. [Source]
The Catholic Bishops, right up to and including the present day crop, all share in the same heritage with respect to these renegade "Catholic" PM's, every one of whom
...without exception has flouted Catholic teaching on sexuality through their pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy agendas. And every one of them considered themselves good Catholics and regularly presented themselves for Holy Communion. During that 38 year reign of social devastation and spiritual ruin too many Catholic Bishops failed to take steps to deal with this epic scandal. Despite the fierce defiance of Catholic teaching exhibited by the Prime Ministers there is no record of even one single occasion when a Catholic Prime Minister was denied Communion. [Source]
Justin Trudeau follows in their footsteps and has already enforced rigid adherence to his devilish standards. Yet no Bishop has the fidelity to Catholic law nor integrity of character to censure the Prime Minister under the demands of Canon Law of Mother Church, even though Canon Law demands such discipline be meted out to unrepentant public sinners.
I have criticized the two leading Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto and Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa, who have the greatest potential influence upon Canadian politicians, only to be met with scorn and censure myself. How ironic that Cardinal Collins has recently undertaken a high profile campaign against Canada's new euthanasia regime yet will not take the most basic of Church disciplinary action against our top "Catholic" politician or any other rebellious Catholic politician. Yet practically all faithful and respected Catholic laity, whether on a personal or professional level, whether in Catholic publications, or in civil rights groups and of course some priests and Bishops, to say nothing of the Vatican itself, have warned that renegade Catholic politicians must be reined in to save the day.
Sadly, the people at Catholic Insight magazine and other establishment Catholic media sources, many lay Catholic associations and even otherwise faithful media and Catholic bloggers, endlessly lament the devolution of Canada's culture and even gripe about what the renegade Catholics are doing to our nation but avoid at all costs even the intimation that Catholic Bishops might be fueling the crisis through misrepresentation of the faith and by neglecting their duties in not disciplining these rebels. There's a huge elephant in the room and, to be sure, it will trample us all in short order.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has presided over the passage of some of the most socially destructive legislation in Canada’s history and continues vocally to insist on his status as a “strong” Catholic. The recent visit of Mexican President Vincente Fox provided him with yet another occasion to appropriate the title, despite the fact he spearheaded the homosexual “marriage” bill’s passage, which is only a few months in the past.
“I am a practising Catholic. In fact I am a strong Catholic,” Martin said at a news conference with the Mexican President. “But, I am also a legislator and I believe in the separation of church and state.” Martin added, “Have I discussed (this) with senior churchmen, with bishops? The answer is: yes, I have. But, as far as any further comment, I’m a legislator and that’s public and I will comment on my public position. As a Catholic, that’s my faith and I’ll keep that to myself.”
Martin’s pretensions however, are disputed by the leadership of the church to which he claims to belong. Even some Canadian bishops, who for the most part, have for decades maintained a stoic silence on the scandal, are saying that a synod of bishops underway in Rome is likely to result in a correction for politicians who deny Catholic doctrine with their actions and still presume to receive Communion.
Most Rev. Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Edmonton, said recently, “If it was clear that the politician ... manifestly just rejected the Gospel, then I think the bishop would say to that person, “Come to Mass, listen to the words of the Gospel, but it’s really not appropriate for you to receive Communion’.”
The strongest episcopal voice has been that of Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, who has written numerous pastoral letters condemning homosexual union legislation and the “Catholic” politicians who support it. In his April 2004 pastoral letter, he said of Paul Martin, “His recently clarified position re: abortion and same-sex unions is a source of scandal in the Catholic community and reflects a fundamental moral incoherence.”
The synod’s working document, which sets the agenda for the meeting, said, “The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in the state of mortal sin.”
Pope Benedict XVI has already hinted that problems like this will be taken seriously at the synod, when he said in his opening speech, “A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion, but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance, but hypocrisy.
“When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist. Then, arbitrariness, power and interests rule.” Too many Catholic lives could be compared to “vinegar, rather than wine,” because of the indifference to God, the pontiff said.
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.
On February 18, 2016 Faith Goldy made a presentation to a church group in Calgary, Alberta entitled "Unmasking the Architects and Evils of Sexual Education." It deals with Ontario's Kathleen Wynne / Ben Levin's evil sex ed curriculum which was hatched in 2010. 30 minutes of the video below is dedicated to that talk. Thanks to the blog One Man's Hope for a Better World.
It is beyond shameful that the Catholic Bishops of Ontario have failed to mount any significant opposition to push back against this evil overtaking our society.
If you want the highly acclaimed, but uncritical, Church of
Nice version of the Cardinal's appearance before the Special joint parliamentary committee on "Assisted Dying,” a
euphemism for "mercy killing" or doctor assisted suicide, go here,
or here,
or here.
If you don't wish to be challenged at all in your thinking about things Catholic,
be sure to not return to this page.
Canada Sinking Deeper
Into Sin
Let’s start by taking a sober look at Canada’s overall moral
state. We have become a nation of killers, responsible, through legalized,
taxpayer funded abortion, for the deaths of at least four million preborn
children. The institution of marriage is crumbling, with divorce rates at about
40%. For at least two generations, it appears Canadians have turned a blind eye
to the natural law, mainstreaming at least two great evils. Contraception has generated
national contempt for the gift of God and has destroyed countless other
millions of tiny pre-born children who have been washed out of the womb through
the use of abortifacient contraceptives. It has also generated a national
crisis centred in forced immigration policies characteristic of the decadent
West and playing into the hands of radical Islam. The second great evil
unleashed is a full panoply of sodomy related perversions, including MSM (men
having sex with men), radical homosexual activism, LGBTQ “rights” and gender
ideology, all of which threaten the survival of the family, and, by extension,
society itself. For about twenty years at least, advocates of euthanasia have
been hammering away at Canadian society, appealing for legal changes that will
allow vulnerable citizens of all ages to be killed in the “compassionate” name
of “assisted” suicide or “merciful” killing. It looks like they have achieved
95% or more of their master plan considering last year’s decision by the
Supreme Court of Canada to decriminalize doctor-assisted suicide, a move which
will undoubtedly open the floodgates to more and more selective murder in the
nation.
Cardinal Collins The
Vicar
Into the den of this evil national abyss stepped Cardinal
Thomas Collins last week to address the parliamentary committee. Keep in mind
that the Cardinal is the Archbishop of Toronto and is a duly consecrated Bishop
of the Roman Catholic Church and, as such, is a Successor of the Apostles of
Jesus Christ. Each Bishop speaks for Jesus Christ to those of his diocese. How
many souls are therefore under the Cardinal’s watch? You might answer, “As many
as are baptized Catholics living in the geographical boundary thereof.” You
would be wrong. The Bishop must count as his flock EVERY
soul living in his diocese, not simply the Catholic souls. By extension then,
the entire population of Canada falls under the spiritual care of the full
complement of Canadian Bishops (whether those souls understand, appreciate or
accept such care).
Having said that, we know the Cardinal was addressing a
parliamentary committee and, as such, a body of national scope. He himself is
considered Canada’s highest ranking prelate, by virtue of the diocese he
governs:
While Toronto's archbishop has no formal authority outside his
diocese's boundaries, the sheer size of Toronto and its status as the nation's
media capital make the Archbishop the sine qua non of the Church's presence in
Canadian public life. [Source] [Update: link no longer active. Go here instead]
The Bishop Stands In
For Jesus Christ
It is obvious then that the Cardinal’s was an opportunity to
address the nation of Canada and in a very real sense as Vicar of Christ. Who
doubts that his words held the potential to be nationally broadcast,
particularly so should he have said anything considered to be controversial? What
then would Our Lord Jesus Christ say to such a rebellious nation if He had just
5-10 minutes? Would He omit any reference to the Supreme
Law of the Church?
I maintain that it’s not too difficult to imagine the theme
of what we might hear from Christ the King. But my opinion is moot. It is well
understood what the Church expects of her Bishops when they speak for Christ.
Allow a Bishop to summarize:
Indeed, the aim of episcopal teaching is
none other than the sanctification of souls. Specifically, the Bishop must seek
to awaken Christian consciences and call every citizen to a responsible moral
life and freedom in Jesus Christ.
And a few more select quotes will sharpen the focus:
The Bishop, with the entire Church, must
pass judgment upon the deceitful and false messages of the age. Illusory
promises and false freedoms must be bravely attacked and substituted with the
message of salvation in Christ and liberation through his Cross and
Resurrection.
…
it is wrong to remain silent out of a
misconceived respect for the separation of Church and State, or fear for the
loss of State granted privileges.
…
All that we do, therefore, to make known the
saving message of Christ aims to set men’s eyes upon the mystery of salvation
with lively hope in the promise of eternal life and union with God.
The Bishop is a herald of hope by pointing
to the things of heaven…toward enduring spiritual realities and the happiness
to which they are called.
…
Bishops must convey that it is precisely by
obeying the divine law inscribed in his conscience, expressed in the teaching
of the Church and urged by the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit that man comes
to a state of true freedom in which he is master of himself and able to relate
to others with interior strength and certitude.
…
his public role in civil society must never
divert so much of his attention as to impede his divine mission.
Having laid out the preceding as a foundation for my
criticisms, I will not take issue per se with anything the Cardinal said. He
seemed to speak more like an ethics professor from a Christian College than as
a Successor to the Apostles. His words lacked the authority of Christ. In fact
I venture to say that Margaret
Somerville would have made an excellent choice to express the majority of
the Cardinal’s concerns. I will simply ask why, in light of his duty as the
representative of Christ, he omitted the following two warnings and thus placed
the souls and futures of all Canadians at grave risk:
1)A warning
to all men and women in Canada, Catholic or non-Catholic, that support—in any
form or context—of physician assisted death, i.e. euthanasia, is a grave evil
and places the soul in real danger of eternal damnation. The natural
law is “present in the heart of each…and its authority extends to all men. It
expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his
fundamental rights and duties.”
§CCC #2277
...Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in
order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the
dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his
Creator....
§CCC # 1874
To choose deliberately—that is, both knowing it and willing it—something
gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit
a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude
is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
§No
circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is
intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written
in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church (Evangelium
Vitae, n. 62d).
§CCC
#2280....It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to
accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our
souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is
not ours to dispose of.
§CCC #2281
Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and
perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It
likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of
solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue
to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2)A warning to Catholic politicians that they
bear a special and weighty responsibility in regard to advancing unjust laws
that threaten the life and dignity of human beings.
John Paul
II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times
that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a GRAVE AND CLEAR
OBLIGATION to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every
Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them. (The
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, n. 4a).
In the
case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or
euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a
propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it" (Evangelium
Vitae, n. 73b).
We urge
those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the
inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences
for their own spiritual well-being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading
others into serious sin.... No public official, especially one claiming to be a
faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support
direct attacks on innocent human life (Living
the Gospel of Life, n. 32)
There must
be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for
abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso
facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize
their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion,
illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences.
It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or
those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have
recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the
Sacrament of Penance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As
Catholics we have the further obligation to give assent to the doctrinal and
moral teachings of the Church because "to the Church belongs the right
always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining
to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent
that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the
salvation of souls." (3) In other words, as people who profess the
Catholic faith, we must "have the mind of Christ" in every judgment
and act (Pastoral
Letter On The Duties Of Catholic Politicians And Voters).
Oftentimes,
Catholic politicians who hold anti-life positions defend their voting record on
the ground that they are following their constituency or the will of the
“majority.” One cannot however defend an unjust law on the ground of political
consensus. We do not consider the “Jim Crow” laws, which discriminated against
African Americans, “just” because the majority of the population supported
them.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Catholic politicians have the responsibility to work against an unjust
law, even when a majority of the electorate supports it. When Catholic
politicians cannot immediately overturn an unjust law, they must never cease to
work toward that end (On
Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good).
The
morality that protects human rights and thus the common good is the first and
best thing worth legislating. When a politician says, "I am personally
opposed to abortion but don’t want to impose my Catholic beliefs" or says
something like, "You can’t legislate morality," he or she fails the
common good. As the bishops stated in "Faithful
Citizenship," Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public
life do not threaten democracy or pluralism, but rather enrich them and the
nation (On
Catholic Teaching on Abortion and Political Beliefs).
Failing The Flock
Warnings are critical when dangers threaten, are they not? I
offer as evidence:
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the
trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any
person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will
require at the watchman’s hand. So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman
for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn
them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’
and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die
in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. (Ezekiel 33:6-8)
Failing to warn the Committee—and by extension, all Canadians—is
an inexcusable omission by the Cardinal. As if to afford the Cardinal an
opportunity to redeem himself and prove his concern for souls, one might think Lady
Providence herself arranged immediately the exchange with Catholic MP Brenda Shanahan,
who seemed to be sincere in her statements but altogether clueless regarding
her responsibilities as a Catholic politician. She was also very confused about
the matter of “imposing her personal beliefs” on fellow Canadians, preferring
to compartmentalize her own Catholic beliefs. The scene in the video defined
between 18:15 and 21:40 is nothing short of an allegory of pseudo-catholic betrayal
amongst the Canadian episcopacy. Here’s the exchange, followed by my
observations.
MP Brenda Shanahan:
Thank you very much Mr. Chair my question is addressed to …uh Msgr. Collins and
Mr. Worthen…uh…I just want it on the record…uh… that I am a practicing Catholic
although I say practicing because I'm not very good yet (laughter)…ah…and you
can be assured that I have…uh…reflected…uh…and prayed on this matter…uh…
greatly…uh…both before and now during this time that I am a Member of
Parliament and…uh…what I…uhhhhhh…how I have had to make my peace with my own
personal beliefs, and I know what I believe and I know that if I’m ever faced
with the choice I’d like to think that I will be able to make the choice that
that my faith requires of me but that being said I I’m here as a
parliamentarian and and I cannot impose my beliefs on others and I am very
conscious of the fact that we have…uh…to…uh…make recommendations for
legislation that are going to address the beliefs and values of all Canadians
so given that the carter decision—and I am relieved to hear that you
acknowledge the carter decision as…uh…indeed as indeed we must…uh…what are
the…uh…how do you reconcile then your approach given that…uh…that …uh…so many
Canadians…and…uh…catholic Canadians look to…ah……uh…faith based care for that
end of life care…how do you reconcile…uh……uh……uh…that…that…end of
…uh…ah..ah…the process of delivering end of life care…uh…to Canadians and…uh…in
the event that they ask for…uh…physician assisted dying?
Cardinal Thomas
Collins: I would say that first of all we do not obviously agree with the…ah…with
assisted suicide and euthanasia. We think this is a direction which leads all
kinds of people into tremendous suffering and is not good for our whole
community. It is really a thing which causes great ultimate suffering for all of
the most vulnerable, including those who are considering suicide and things of
that nature. Um…We know though that obviously, as you say, that people are…are
proceeding along this path in response to the Supreme Court…umh… judgment
umh…but individuals…ah…and I would not presume to say that I am going to…by my
words (chuckle) or something, stop that from proceeding. I…that’s up…this is
the parliamentary process that’s in place. It is not for me to engage in it but
I would simply say that there are many many Canadians especially those most
deeply intimately involved in caring for people who are profoundly troubled by
our country moving in this direction and that whatever procedures you are in
the course of setting up that those who have that profound conviction…uh…must
be…I think their their conscience needs to be protected and I’m glad the
Unitarian church also agrees with that. I think that not only individuals but
also institutions. There is…there are ways of providing…aah…protection for
conscience and dealing with this issue and I think Larry has mentioned that and
might want to give more detail on that.
My commentary:
1)Brenda Shanahan, a “practicing” Catholic,
reflected and prayed on the matter of "my own personal beliefs" vs.
the views of “all Canadians” (as if there were some national consensus). We presume she is personally opposed (as our
own Catholic Prime Minister claims to be “personally
opposed” to abortion) and “here as a parliamentarian” which somehow is
automatically supposed to overrule her own Catholic identity. Did she make a silent
pact with her constituents that she would always privatize her Catholic
beliefs? If so, it would have been contrary to the common
good and a serious violation of Catholic teaching, as described in an
earlier section of this posting. She assumed that she “cannot impose my beliefs
on others” and was required to “address the beliefs and values of all Canadians”
and she “must honour the Carter decision”…“as indeed we must” she declared.
She
was in fact duty bound as a Catholic
politician to defend the sanctity of human life and to resist steadfastly
any proposal or legislation in the public realm that would attack it. When it
comes to rendering to God the things that are God’s she is obligated as a
Catholic to choose Christ and the teachings of His Church over Caesar. Anything
less is a betrayal of Christ. Her position suggests that certain other views in
the public square that clashed with the teachings of Christ were not only fair
and legitimate but actually took precedence because a man-made court pronounced
it so. If the court ruled that black people might once again be taken as
slaves, would she meekly accept the judgment? Apparently if the “beliefs and
values of all Canadians” lined up with such a decision, she would once again consign
her Catholic beliefs to the trash bin in order to “honour” the court. Such a
view is really only a variety of indifferentism, a
heresy condemned by the Catholic Church and closely aligned with moral
relativism, but one which stems from today’s highly esteemed and modern
value of “pluralism.”
2)Madame Shanahan actually egged on the Cardinal,
impugning his resistance to euthanasia by insisting “so many Catholics look to
faith based care for end of life decisions...how do you reconcile?” She is
affronted and has stepped up the rhetoric as though the Cardinal has no right
to even hold to Church teaching in light of other people’s opinions, seemingly
oblivious to the concept that the Cardinal might actually adhere to God’s
position on the matter. Other Catholics like her often play the card of “separation
of Church and State” in such controversies. The MP from Châteauguay-Lacolle
has not grasped as a Catholic that the common good of a society is best
achieved by adherence to the revelation of God Almighty as expressed in the Magisterium
of the Catholic Church.
3)But doubly disturbing was the Cardinal’s shameful
response. Here seemed to be a moment orchestrated by God to help save the
woman’s soul. And how many serious Catholics have the opportunity to sit
opposite a high ranking Church leader, especially a Cardinal, and engage in
such a public showdown of positions? But the great question is: Was the Cardinal
successful in helping her to align her soul with the teaching of the Church?
Shockingly, the Cardinal completely sidesteps the challenge, almost as though
oblivious to the spiritual realities posed. It would have been entirely in
keeping with the Cardinal’s authority and duty to state, with great respect and
charity: Madame MP, I am compelled to say as a shepherd of God’s flock that
every Catholic is required to conform their conscience to the official and
infallible teaching of the Church, the very Mind of Christ, on such a weighty
moral matter as this one. In so doing, every Catholic politician can truly
fulfil their duty in the public square and so contribute to the common good. In
the matter of such a grave moral evil as euthanasia, which the Church condemns
as murder, should a Catholic politician fail to promote the good, but instead,
advance unjust laws that take human life, this would be counted as grave sin indeed
and that politician should fear for his/her eternal soul. It is simply not
sufficient to hold the teaching as a personal opinion or standard but rather the
teaching is universal and true and deserves to be advanced for the public good.
Furthermore, Madame MP, you are morally obligated as a Catholic to strenuously oppose
any such proposal or legislation which might favour euthanasia.
4)Madame Shanahan’s comments were quite scandalous,
given their import and their public setting. In a videotaped national hearing,
she signalled her intention to support a position contrary to Catholic teaching
on a gravely immoral matter, and, at the same time, pestered a Catholic Bishop
who held his ground. Such wrongdoing, if not exposed and condemned as false and
dangerous, would have further scandalized the nation, particularly Catholics
and all persons of good will. The fact that she was not corrected by the Cardinal
was a further scandal. By his silence he encouraged her and all the hearers in
the evil expressed; moreover he made no effort to help her curb her mortal sin.
5)Either the Cardinal does not believe Catholic
moral teaching on sin, judgment and salvation through Jesus Christ or he does
believe it but refuses to speak up for it. So which is it, heresy or
dereliction of duty? Perhaps the Cardinal does not truly believe that the MP’s
advocacy constitutes a mortal sin. Perhaps he thinks she is entitled to her
opinion, because, after all, her conscience,
not Christ’s teaching, is supreme. After all, the Winnipeg
Statement said as much, did it not? For all we know, that committee meeting
might have been the last meeting the MP would ever have, the last opportunity she
would have to amend her thinking and conform her heart to Christ before going
to meet God. Viewed in that light, was not the Cardinal’s abrogation of duty
capital indeed? I have argued similarly that the Cardinal’s silence
on contraception in his Archdiocese is endangering the souls of countless
of his flock.
6)In a very ironic twist, some of the Cardinal’s
own words seem to have betrayed the fact that he has altogether lost sight of
his commission as an Apostle of Christ (starts at approximately 20:45):
I would not presume to say that I am going to…by my words (chuckle) or
something, stop that from proceeding. I…that’s up…this is the parliamentary
process that’s in place. It is not for me to engage in it.
So we may infer then that, like
Madame Shanahan, the Cardinal himself believes that he shouldn’t impose his
beliefs upon others (not even upon fellow Catholics like Madame MP, his own
sheep!). But even that is not the most startling part: he suggests that he has
no expectation that his words could persuade the nation to abandon its course
towards euthanasia nor does he think even that he can play a decisive role in
the process: “It is not for me to engage
in it.” Is the Cardinal saying that his calling as a Bishop excludes him
from the process or that he ought to exclude himself from the process due to
some commitment to “separation of Church and State?” His words are rather
cryptic but we can say for certain that his words do not sound Catholic! If the
highest ranking Catholic Bishop of a nation, who stands in for Christ, the King
of Nations and the Universe, can play no decisive role in the moral direction
of that nation, regardless of where or when he speaks, who exactly could play
such a role? Such thinking is simply not Catholic!
7)Had the Cardinal come prepared to speak on
behalf of Christ, the scandal of MP Shanahan’s comments might have been
altogether avoided. A strong and comprehensive warning in the Cardinal’s
introductory remarks would have, quite possibly, altered altogether the
trajectory of the MP’s thinking. There simply would have been no need for her
to make such statements as she did after hearing the words of Christ.
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the
sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the
sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches
them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not
concerned about the sheep. John 10:11-13
Prayer for the Conversion or Downfall of ThomasCardinal
Collins
Dear St. Joseph, Terror of Demons and Protector of Holy
Church, Chaste Guardian of Our Lord and His Mother, hear my urgent prayer and
swiftly intercede with our Saviour, whom as a loving father you defended so
diligently, that He will pour abundant graces upon His chosen shepherd, Thomas
Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, Canada so that he will embrace fully
his duties towards all the faithful under his care, in accord with the laws and
precepts of Holy Mother Church, and, because of the gravity of their public
positions, particularly towards all wayward Catholic politicians in Canada’s
largest See and in the nation. Should the Cardinal persist in a callous
disregard of Church doctrine and standards which demonstrates contempt for God
and man and which ultimately condemns countless souls to Hell, dear St.
Joseph similarly intercede that through sickness, adversities, or other divine
judgements all his ministrations will promptly fail and come to their just end
in order that an example of God’s displeasure be manifest unto all God’s
faithful and that a worthy Bishop may take his place and restore order and
discipline amongst all Catholic souls in Toronto, the most influential see in
our great nation. Assist me further, dear St. Joseph, in interceding that in
the case of such a calamitous outcome, the Cardinal himself may, in the end,
find repentance with the Lord. Amen.
