Sentinel of the Invisible

The PM's communion blunder

Posted by Doris Germain at 12:46 PM

- or the bishop who ought to have known better

This just makes me want to throw up my hands and then get down on my knees and pray.

This is yet another symptom of the deep crisis of faith in the Canadian Catholic church. It would appear that there is much agnosticism in our church hierarchy. Let me explain :

• Either there is a Magisterium or there isn't - the Winnipeg Statement, while paying lip service to the Magisterium, says that, ultimately, one may disregard it in order to "follow one's own conscience". (It reminds me of Luther's phrase "Every man is born with a Pope in his belly".)
• Either a child in the womb is a human being and abortion is murder or it isn't - the general lack of response over the past 40 years from the Canadian bishops in defense of the unborn and the recent D&P scandal makes one wonder if our bishops are really clear on the nature of the little human that happens to still be "in utero".
• Either the host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord or it isn't - the Archbishop should have known better (see Canons 389 and 392 - 1983 (CIC) ). Ignorance of these canons on the part of a Catholic bishop is unthinkable. The only other conclusion that I can come up with is that, on the question of what it is that he did put in Mr. Harper's hand, he's an agnostic, and so he let the "chief of protocol" decide for him.

I'm not sure I'd say it all started with the Winnipeg Statement. My suspicion is that it goes further back, that the fateful statement of 1968 was in fact the last nail in the coffin. What we are now seeing is just some rather lame attempts to make this corpse look alive.

Let us not lose heart, though, look back through 2000 years of church history, you'll see this sort of sillyness is business as usual. Time and time again, man tries to usurp the place of God and only ends up sullying the Bride of Christ. We have his promise, though, that she will be presented to Him spotless.

Our hope is in the Lord. He will not leave us orphans. We have some very good clergy. While it may seem that for the last 40 years these good priests have been lonely voices speaking in the desert, their words will not be fruitless.

As St. Francis stood in the midst of a church in ruins, he had no idea of the renewal that would be brought about by his obedience to God's call. Let us each be willing to obey God's call. From these ruins, God will bring new life.

Clerical Contraception

Posted by Doris Germain at 1:39 PM

François-Marius Granet - Priest at the altar - Source

By Rev.Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of "Human Life International". Published on October 6th, 2006 at "Spirit and Life". Reprinted with permission.

The beloved founder of Human Life International, Fr. Paul Marx, was not known to mince words when it came to what he called the "conspiracy of silence" from the pulpits of our Church on the issue of contraception, but his insights of twenty and thirty years ago were right on target and remain true to this day: "Future generations," he said, "will wonder why so many Catholic bishops and priests in the West didn't see contraception as a seminal evil and the chief cause of the Church's swift decline." There is the core issue. Priestly silence about contraception is deadly both to the Church and to our society.

To this day the vast majority of Catholic clergy refuse to talk about contraception despite their moral obligation to do so. I can tell you that it is not only in the United States that this is the case; it is true in every part of the world. The reasons for this negligence range from outright heresy to lack of moral courage to inexcusable ignorance of the subject matter. Whatever the reason, the effect is the same: something I call clerical contraception.

Contraception itself is a rejection of God's sovereignty over one's marriage and a refusal to obey the Lord's command to "be fruitful and multiply." The priest, though not married, analogously contracepts the life-giving seed of truth when he refuses to preach the Catholic Faith—all of it. Faith comes through hearing, says St. Paul, and it is through the priestly ministry that Christ transmits the Faith to His bride, the Church, so that she can be fruitful and multiply the souls who are brought to salvation.

This is probably the main reason why so many Catholics today contracept or sterilize themselves and see absolutely no contradiction in receiving the Eucharist every Sunday and believing themselves in perfect communion with the Church. They've never been admonished that it is a mortal sin to use contraception or get sterilized. They've never been told of the physical and spiritual danger of these practices, and they've never been made aware of the magnificent, life-giving alternatives that the Church offers to the Ideology of Infertility.

Priests who are silent about the teaching on contraception also forget two very important things: first, priestly vocations generally come from large families. Failure to preach openness to life and generosity with children has a direct effect on how many men will be standing in the trenches with us later on. Contracepting this teaching has the same effect as contracepting the marital act: sterility. The persistent sterility of priestly vocations in the West is caused by priests who are silent about the plague of contraception among the laity and forget that their own vocations are the result of their parents' generosity with life. Overworked priests will be reaping the fruits of their silence on contraception for a long time.

Secondly, priestly silence about contraception has eternal consequences. The price of that silence is the loss of souls.

Contracepting men and women who are not warned of their sin and who therefore do not repent of it risk the death of their immortal souls, and that is a scandal of immense proportions. To be warned is to be forewarned, especially about something so crucial. Perhaps the only danger of greater consequence is the danger to the priests themselves who don't do their job: they risk their own spiritual deaths because in the end they will be held accountable for preaching the Church's full message "in season and out of season."

All priests should read the Lord's message to the prophet Ezekiel to know the high stakes of failing to preach the fullness of Christ's teaching: "If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death" (Ez 3:18). May every priest take this warning to heart!

Sincerely Yours in Christ,


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

---

Dr. Pia Francesca De Solenni Offers Much Food For Thought On Feminism

Posted by Doris Germain at 1:36 PM

Source

In the past week, I have attended two events, which on the surface seem to be diametrically opposed, but in fact share a common thread. The first of the two was the Dec. 5th meeting whereby the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) passed a motion to refuse recognition, funding and space to groups engaging in what they call "anti-choice actions". The second, was a talk given by Dr. Pia Francesca de Solenni, sponsored by the Cosmas and Damian Society for Medical Ethics & The Ottawa Catholic Physician’s Guild, entitled: "The True Meaning of Human Sexuality: Being vs. Doing."

At the CUSA meeting, in the course of making her point, a young feminist argued that the fetus is a parasite. Those who are familiar with the abortion debate will quickly recognize this argument as belonging to the most radical strand of feminism. Seen in this light, the fetus becomes an enemy and abortion becomes a woman's right. This argument, however, betrays a profoundly flawed conception of human beings, both the unborn and women.

This is where Dr. de Solenni's talk comes in. She makes a clear and coherent case showing that Church teaching provides the right anthropology, one that sees women as bearers of the Imago Dei. According to Dr. de Solenni, who has extensively studied feminism in light of Thomistic anthropology and theology, one of the fruits of the feminist movement lies in having brought us to the point where we find ourselves in the rut of putting doing in the place of being. We need to learn to recognize our essentiality as souls with bodies. These bodies are either male or female, determined from the very moment of conception. Our femaleness or maleness is something we bring into our doing. St. Joan of Arc was no less feminine for having led an army, St. Augustine was not effeminate for speaking about the heart.(Note: If I am misrepresenting Dr. de Solenni's talk, I would gladly be corrected. I am writing this some 48 hours after having heard it. In any case, here's an interview which is sort of a teaser to what she has to offer.)

The implications of this "new feminism"

Disclaimer: I actually dislike using any "ism" to refer to the truth about human beings, since truth is universal. I do recognize, though, that there is a need to address the ravages of feminist ideology and Dr. Solenni does just that.

Hearing Dr. Pia de Solenni's talk got me thinking about the abortion debate. I believe this Thomistic anthropology is often overlooked and that it is an important aspect to bring into the discussion.

At its most basic, abortion is about personhood, most would say about the personhood of the unborn, and I agree, but it is also about womanhood. (It was interesting, at the CUSA meeting when a student brought up the issue of abortion for the purpose of gender selection, which discriminates against women, the pro-choicers/feminists had a difficult time coming up with an answer.)

Pro-lifers do well to argue for the recognition of the unborn as a human being, but as long as people hold on to the feminist anthropology, which denies woman's essential characteristic as a bearer of life, there will be people willing to put women's rights in opposition to the rights of the unborn. We may succeed at convincing a woman that the fetus is a human person, but she may still feel it is her right to dispose of it, especially if she adheres to the more radical trend in feminism where everything is looked at through the lens of the class struggle between the sexes (and by extension, between women and their offspring). When a woman asserts that the life beginning in her womb is a parasite, she is in fact denying her womanhood. Seeing herself as a bearer of the Imago Dei frees a woman from that struggle, enabling her to embrace her very essence.

What is crucial about driving this point home to the pro-choicers is that as long as they continue to deny what is essential to being a woman (i.e. XX chromosomes - her femaleness right from conception), then it will be just as easy to deny the personhood of her unborn child. Also, as long as she fails to see that she is created in the image of God, she will behave in ways that will lead to unwanted pregnancy, and leave her vulnerable to the abortionist vultures.

It basically comes down to an identity crisis, and usually, the arguments brought forth by the pro-choicers are about affirming their identity, their right to their body. This comes from the fact that having adopted a view of the human person which denies their most basic essence (by claiming that gender is nothing but a social construct), they are left grasping at the straws of vague self-esteem and self-empowerment, all the while riding on a wave of self-victimization that sees even an embryo as an enemy.

---

Dr. Pia de Solenni's doctoral Thesis, Towards an Understanding of Woman as Imago Dei, was awarded the Pontifical Prize of the Academies by Pope John Paul II. It is published by Edizioni Universita Della Santa Croce (2003) ISBN:8883330838

Dr. Pia de Solenni

Posted by Doris Germain at 11:58 PM

I just came back from hearing her talk. If you haven't heard of her yet, Google her, read her articles. Here is one intelligent young woman speaking the truth about feminism, mariage, moral theology.

CUSA meeting - audio files

Posted by Doris Germain at 1:46 PM

Here are some audio files I managed to record at the CUSA meeting.
The sound quality is not so great, I was sitting in the back.

Part I - Some questions before the actual question period

• CUSA's role
• Anti-choice actions to be banned - not faith-based groups.
• Definition of anti-choice actions.
• Threat of legal action against CUSA.

Part II - Beginning of question period - Shawn Menard & Katy McIntyre respond to some questions by (I believe it to be) Sarah Fletcher.

Part III - Question period

• Origin of term "anti-choice".
• Why the need for this motion.
• Clarification on CUSA's discrimination policy.
• Clarification on the type of event that sparked this issue.

Part IV - Question period

• Opting out of CUSA if one does not support their policies.

Part V - Shawn Menard introduces the motion.

• CUSA (along with other student unions across the country) is "pre-emptive of society".
• What makes "anti-choice" groups discriminatory.

- Questions

• Representatives were not elected on this issue - shouldn't there be a referendum?
• Charter of Rights
• Difference between pro-life and "anti-choice"

Part VI - Question period

• Can CUSA legitimately take position on abortion issue?

Part VIb - Question period

• Who will speak for the pro-life side if this motion goes through?
• Women's center offers both pro-choice and pro-life resources.

Part VII - Question period

• Rights of the unborn
• Does "anti-choice" serve the rights of women or men?
• Gender equality policy of CUSA
• If motion doesn't pass - will the door be opened to other discriminatory groups?
• Would clubs defending rights of the unborns be supported by CUSA?

Part VIII - Question period

• Why is this motion needed to protect womens "reproductive rights"?
• Are there pro-life resources provided on campus?
• Where did this motion become interchanged with the suppression of pro-life groups?
• More clarification about "anti-choice" actions

Part IX - Question period

• Would a debate promoting the criminalization of abortion be allowed if this motion was to pass?
• Would an already existing club be allowed to host a pro-choice/anti-choice debate?
• Is extending rights to the unborn an act of discrimination against women?

Part X - Question period

• Will this motion be discriminating against the unborn child?
• Would abortion debate be prohibited?
• Which types of groups would this motion affect?
• Would a group opposing abortion used for gender selection be supported by CUSA?

Part XI - Question period

• If Carleton Lifeline submits their mandate - would they be certified?