Bishop leads prayers for rain -- and it rains. Deo gratias!
The San Angelo Standard-Times today reports (click on this post's title) that Bishop Michael Pfeifer of the Diocese of San Angelo,Texas, on August 9 asked everyone in his drought-stricken area to pray on Sunday, August 27, for rain -- and more than 1-1/2 inches of rain fell that day!
Bishop Pfeifer wrote on August 9, '''As we humbly pray for this gift, we thank our God for the rains of the past, and we trust that as we ask our Heavenly Father for this gift in the name of Christ, that it will be granted,' the letter states...'We leave that in the hands of God.'''
Yes, we have intentions at Mass. But what intentions can you think of that Cardinal Mahony should ask everyone in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to pray for, at every Mass, every day?
To stop earthquakes, fires, floods and drought, for starters.
But how about a right to life intention at every Mass? We DESPERATELY need that. And our U.S. bishops a while back called for a pro-life intention at every Mass, believe it or not.
A prayer that every Catholic resist and refuse the proselytizers of all the false sects, and that all who have defected return to Holy Mother Church. We really need that one, too.
I leave the rest to your imagination. But please be charitable in your wording!
Bishop Pfeifer wrote on August 9, '''As we humbly pray for this gift, we thank our God for the rains of the past, and we trust that as we ask our Heavenly Father for this gift in the name of Christ, that it will be granted,' the letter states...'We leave that in the hands of God.'''
Yes, we have intentions at Mass. But what intentions can you think of that Cardinal Mahony should ask everyone in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to pray for, at every Mass, every day?
To stop earthquakes, fires, floods and drought, for starters.
But how about a right to life intention at every Mass? We DESPERATELY need that. And our U.S. bishops a while back called for a pro-life intention at every Mass, believe it or not.
A prayer that every Catholic resist and refuse the proselytizers of all the false sects, and that all who have defected return to Holy Mother Church. We really need that one, too.
I leave the rest to your imagination. But please be charitable in your wording!
posted by Quintero at 11:06 PM
36 Comments:
We should pray daily for an increase of vocations to the priesthood and to the religious life and for the perserverance of our priests and Religious. We should also pray that all the People of God--clerical and lay--respond to the Universal Call to Holiness.
Reverend and Dear Father G,
Truly well said! Thank you for bringing up these indispensable prayer intentions. And thank you, as always, for visiting here!
Sorry, but it is more likey that Mahony would ask for the peaceful forced implementation of Sheila Kuehl's demonic SB 1441 now that his buddy Arnold has signed it into law.
By the way, go to our Website at:crcoa.com to see how Arnold's name is emblazoned on the so called Honor Wall at the RogMahal.
Why not, now that his other buddy Neiderauer is insulting out intelligence with his statement, apprarently with Levada's approval, that he is in keeping with the Church's teachings by allowing his "Catholic" Charities to refer sodomites who want to molest, er adopt, innocent children to an Agency that will allow them to do so!
What ever happened to the sin of enabling one to sin?
If it sound like I am angry, it is because I am. A very Holy Roman Catholic priest once told me that there is such a thing as justifiable and holy anger!
Kenneth M. Fisher
I can empathize, Mr. Fisher, because I know that so many hopes were placed in Pope Benedict XVI by those who feel the Church's leaders have been and are wrong-headed. The Holy Father has shown himself to be quite the moderate conciliator and not at all the "house-cleaner" more tradionalist Catholics were banking on when they heard the name "Ratzinger" proclaimed from the central loggia of St. Peter's Basilica. I can just imagine how it must stick in the craw of consistent and persistent Cardinal Mahony-detractors to see one of his very best friends as the Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Why, it might mean that they have to consider that just maybe Cardinal Mahony and Cardinal Levada represent mainstream Catholicism while they, the self-appointed guardians and defenders of the Faith, do not.
Fr. G: There is no such thing as "mainstream Catholicism." There is the truth and there is that which is not the truth.
Examples of the latter: Mahony is in clear violation of so many of the rubrics (I dare you to bust out a copy of the GIRM and see just how MANY), so many of the teachings on morality, so many of the Vatican guidelines with regard to whom should be allowed to enter seminary, so many other things which the historic Church has (and always will) uphold as Truth ... that he is bordering on schism.
To even use a term like "mainstream Catholicism" seems to indicate a kind of Zeitgeist uber Alles mentality.
The Truth doesn't change. Majority vote can never make 2+2=5.
--Jehu
If Cardinal Mahony, or any bishop, were in violation of Church teaching, it would belong to the Supreme Pontiff and those delegated by him to correct and, if necessary, to discipline the erring prelate. (Ours is, after all, a hierarchical Church.) Many bishops, Cardinal Mahony no doubt among them, have been delated to the Holy See by concerned Catholics, I am sure. As faithful Catholics, we must allow the Holy See, and only the Holy See, to determine whether the charges made against bishops are worthy of disciplinary action. If we do not trust the Holy Father and his closest collaborators, our ecclesiology as well as our hierarchical system of Church governance will collapse.
"As faithful Catholics, we must allow the Holy See, and only the Holy See, to determine whether the charges made against bishops are worthy of disciplinary action. If we do not trust the Holy Father and his closest collaborators, our ecclesiology as well as our hierarchical system of Church governance will collapse."
Agreed. BUT that does not mean that we cannot point out the Holy See and faithful Catholics everwhere what would otherwise remain hidden from them. That is our duty.
However, you're skipping over my main point which was that there is no "mainstream Catholicism" vs. that which is not "mainstream." There is the Truth and there is that which is not. And anyone can see that Mahony isn't teaching the same thing as the Vatican.
--Jehu
Ezekiel 33:8
and
2 Timothy 4:2
were spoken to ALL of us, not just the clergy.
I did not skip over the assertions by "anonymous" about truth; rather, I pointed out that, with regard to any bishop's alleged departure from the truth, only the Supreme Pontiff and those delegated by him are competent to pass judgment. It is not my place (or "anonymous"s' for that matter) to judge Cardinal Mahony or any other bishop. Moreover, charity and justice demand that we consider bishops faithful to the truth unless and until the Holy See decrees otherwise. Thus, we have within mainstream Catholicism Bishop Bruskewitz and Bishop Gumbleton, both controversial yet both servants of the same truth.
father g,
Are you hinting that Women Priest, Homosexual Priest, the Bible is only fiction, "St. Joseph thought of jumping on Mary's bones" etc. etc. ad nauseam is within the truth because the Vatican has not yet seen fit to discipline Mahony?
We can not canonically declare Mahony a heretic, but we can and must protect the faithful from his heresies.
Jesus did not ask us to put our brains on hold in order to be Catholics!
I suggest you read the life of St. Athanasius the Great!
You also should read the prophecies of Our Lady of La Sallette!
Kenneth M. Fisher
The LaSalette apparition is unique in that Catholics may believe that the apparitions occured but the Church did not approve the "messages." So I'll pass on spending any time with "messages" that I deem are no more valid than the lunatic-fringe-like rantings that sprang from Bayside or the anti-bishop, fraudulent "heavenly tidbits" foisted upon the Church by rebellious Franciscans and their followers in Bosnia-Herzegovina! With regard to Cardinal Mahony, I defy anyone to make the charge of heresy stick...even Mother Angelica was felled by one overlooked footnote in that regard (despite the admirable aid rendered her by Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.). As I said previously, none of us has the right to judge any bishop a heretic. If we suspect that a bishop is a heretic, our responsibilities are to refer the matter to the Holy See and to pray for the man in question. Until the Holy See declares otherwise, the suspect bishop must be accorded all the respect and filial obedience his office deserves. Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony is the Archbishop of Los Angeles by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See...all others really have no say in the matter. As "anonymous" so correctly pointed out, the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
Fr. g: Jehu here. Y'know, the one you insist on calling "anonymous?"
Anyway ... you're equating La Sallette with Bayside? What a ridiculous statement. Bayside was condemned. La Sallette was accepted as worthy of belief (albeit, like all private revelation, not required belief).
And ... once again you go dividing Catholics between "mainstream" and "lunatic-fringe." If La Sallette is the same as, in your eyes, "lunatic-fringe-like rantings," why did the Church approve them?
Now who is questioning the rightful authority and judging where he has not the competence?
Yours truly,
Jehu
Clarification: That sentence should read "If La Sallette is the same as, in your eyes, 'lunatic-fringe-like rantings,' why did the Church approve the La Sallette apparitions?"
Sorry about that.
Oh yeah, that last one was me.
--Jehu
Hi, Jehu...as i said, LaSallette is unique. The Church does not approve the "messages" as worthy of belief but says it's OK to believe in the apparition itself. As is every Catholic's right, however, I reject both the apparition and the "messages" of LaSallette so it's easy for me to equate them with Bayside and Medjugorje, both of which I also reject.
father g.
Pope Liberius gave into the Arians and for a while became one himself, thus for a while the Pope was a heretic. The Bishop he excommunicated for opposing Arianism is now St. Anthansius the Great!
As I said before, being a Catholic does not mean we put our God given brains on hold.
Oh yes, another of Mahony's favorites at the Congress urged everyone to commit the sin of "not avoiding the near occasion of sin" by reading sodomite novels, and seeing "Broke Back Mountain". By the way a prominent member of the Curia spoke very clearly against
that so called "Love Story"!
Father do you believe in Fatima, after all it also is only approved "private revelation"?
By the way, I also reject Bayside and Medjugorje, and they are not approved, but I rejected Medjugorje even before the Vatican did because God does not require us to put our brains on hold to be Catholic!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Fr. g,
Father, in regards to "Private Revelation" please go to the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church" item 67.
Kenneth M. Fisher
father g.
Pope Liberius gave into the Arians and for a while became one himself, thus for a while the Pope was a heretic. The Bishop he excommunicated for opposing Arianism is now St. Anthansius the Great!
As I said before, being a Catholic does not mean we put our God given brains on hold.
Oh yes, another of Mahony's favorites at the Congress urged everyone to commit the sin of "not avoiding the near occasion of sin" by reading sodomite novels, and seeing "Broke Back Mountain". By the way a prominent member of the Curia spoke very clearly against
that so called "Love Story"!
Father do you believe in Fatima, after all it also is only approved "private revelation"?
By the way, I also reject Bayside and Medjugorje, and they are not approved, but I rejected Medjugorje even before the Vatican did because God does not require us to put our brains on hold to be Catholic!
Kenneth M. Fisher
Fr. g: My mother volunteers at a La Salette shrine, so I'll double check this with her but ... I'm pretty sure you're not giving the whole story with regard to that apparition. If I recall correctly, I believe that the initial message was approved but not the subsequent "additional" messages.
--Jehu
I believe in Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Guadalupe...all the rest, I either reject or pay them no attention. Quite frankly, I am more than overwhelmed with the richness of Public Revelation to entertain any fascination or preocupation with private revelations. Of course, the only thing that makes any private revelation worth anybody's time or notice is its reiteration of what was already contained in Public Revelation. So if someone says that Our Lady at Fatima asked for prayer and penance, all I can say in response is that that's what Public Revelation had been calling for for neaarly two millenia before three shepherd children gave us the Fatima legend.
To clarify the Church's stance on La Salette, I offer this material from Wikipedia:
"Catholics are not required to believe in a miraculous origin for the events at La Salette: as with other Church-approved visions, it is designated "worthy of belief". This approval extends only to the 1846 apparition itself, and some of the miraculous healings. The authentic secrets of La Salette have now been published, and the widely circulated 1873 "secret" is under suspicion."
The article notes that the 1873 "secret" was immediately placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and that several Popes, including Leo XIII and Benedict XV, issued admonitions against the 1873 "secret".
I found it interesting that one of the priests who released the 1873 "secret" in our time was none other than Father Rene Laurentin who has, of course, totally discredited himself by his close association with and promotion of the fraud Vassula Ryden, a Greek Orthodox laywoman who calls the Catholic Church an apostate Church.
Hello, Everyone,
In the years to come, it will be small consolation indeed to the orphans turned over to homosexuals with the complicity of Abp. Niederauer, and the apparent okay of Cdl. Levada, to hear those prelates praised as "mainstream Catholics" and "not wrong-headed."
Committing "an adroit end-run," as the San Francisco Chronicle called it, around the ORDER of the Holy See to NOT hand over kids to homosexuals is NOT "mainstream."
Compromising the lives and souls of innocent little orphans is what "sticks in my craw." Same with excusing and enabling the abortions of preborn babies. Church appointments and discipline are important, but they are nothing compared to the fate of the children, born and preborn.
Dear Qunitero,
The point I have been trying to make all along is that none of us can have it both ways--we cannot be traditional Catholics and then act as if we want the Church to function as a democracy.
If Archbishop Niederauer has done something wrong, in our hierachical system of Church governance, it is the Holy Father who is suposed to correct him. Because we are not a democracy, the rest of us have no right to judge what belongs only to the Pope to judge. Yet I see people claiming to be "traditional Catholic" trying to usurp the Pope's singular role, calling prelates in good standing "heretics" and the like. This is violative not only of our hierarchical system but of the virtues of charity and justice as well.
Have you ever noticed that schismatics like those in the Society of St. Pius X like to wrap themselves in the mantle of St. Athanasius? How ironic that this champion of mainstream Catholicism should be so callously abused. I hope real "traditional Catholics" are not more sympathetic to schismatics than they are to authentic Catholics and Catholicism itself!
Reverend and Dear Father G,
Hoping that our hierarchy will obey the Pope, the Magisterium, Catholic morality and simple human decency, when the SOULS and SAFETY of INNOCENT LITTLE ORPHANS are at stake, is in no way wanting the Church to become a democracy.
Hoping that our hierarchy will OBEY the Pope is AFFIRMING our Church's hierarchical nature.
Reverend and Dear Father G,
To say, "the rest of us have no right to judge what belongs only to the Pope to judge," confuses the issue.
To express the fervent hope that the Archdiocese of San Francisco will reverse course and cease being complicit in handing over INNOCENT CHILDREN to homosexuals is in no way to "judge" Archbishop Niederauer. It is ONLY to FOCUS on SAVING the CHILDREN.
Archbishop Niederauer is NOT the focus of this debate. The ORPHANS and their SOULS and SAFETY are.
Trying to SAVE little ORPHANS is in no way schismatic, lunatic fringe, judging or ranting. It is true religion, as Scripture says.
Dear Quintero,
If you are familiar with law and juriprudence, you know there is the law itself and then there is the interpretation and application of the law. Church law is different from Anglo-Saxon common law in that Church law allows for exceptions and dispensations.
For example, it is Church law that only the Mass of Pope Paul VI is allowed in the Latin Catholic Church but there is a dispensation in the form of the Indult "Ecclesia Dei"; an indult is a Church legal mechanism by which something forbidden is tolerated.
Another example would be the number of dispenations granted for Catholics to marry outside the Church (dispensation from Canonical Form).
Some laws explicitly state that it is up to the diocesan bishop or for the episcopal conference to determine how best to apply a law in a particular setting. The prohibition on membership in Freemasonry, on the other hand, explicitly states that no bishop may offer an interpretation that would allow a Catholic to belong to a Masonic Lodge.
It is up to Archbishop Niederauer to determine how the directive from Cardinal Levada can best be interpreted and applied in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. If Cardinal Levada wants a specific interpretation and application, he is in the position to say so.
Meanwhile, those of us who are not in this "loop" must abide by the decisions made by the Magisterium. That, my dear friend Qunitero, is how hierarchy works. Sometimes I don't like it either, but it's the system Jesus gave us (and it's how the Magisterium interprets and applies His Will!)
Reverend and Dear Father G,
Most everyone knows how hierarchy works. The question is, "What about the LITTLE CHILDREN?"
Archbishop Niederauer has already intimated that he consulted with Cardinal Levada about his new policy, which the San Francisco Chronicle called "an adroit end run AGAINST the Vatican" directive.
If the Cdl has already okayed the Abp's policy, he is not likely to overrule himself now. Does that mean no one in the Church can do anything to save the children, such as proceeding through other channels in the hierarchy?
And does it mean the Cdl and the Abp are ABOVE CRITICISM and no one may EVER question ANYTHING they ever do, such as helping betray kids into homosexuals' clutches?
You brought up the Good Lord, so may I emphatically say it is impossible that He founded Holy Mother Church and Her hierarchy to give children to homosexuals.
I dare anyone to look a helpless orphan in the face and say, "Tough luck, kid, I won't protect you -- I've got an archbishop and a cardinal to protect."
I say that with all due respect. I am trying to spark everyone's conscience to fight for the kids.
Reverend and Dear Father G,
It occurs to me that to say, in essence, that we cannot help kids because we must abide by whatever the hierarchy does, is a policy the U.S. Church has already tried and failed at. When? During the molestation and cover-up scandals.
Kids and youths were the losers. Change did not happen until the laity started speaking up.
Dear Quintero,
I still insist that Archbishop Niederauer and Cardinal Levada are in the position to judge what is and what is not an appropriate interpretation and application of the Holy See's directives in this matter. I fail to see what good can possibly be accomplished by constantly second-guessing them.
I guess, in reality, you and I have been arguing about two different things. Since the directive about placing children with homosexual couples came from the Holy See, I rely upon the competent Church authorities to see to it that the directives are properly interpreted and applied. It may very well be the case that the Holy See is satisfied that the interpretation and application of the directive by Catholic Charities in San Francisco is an adequate one.
You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that no child ever be placed wiith homosexual couples and that the Church must completely remove itself from any system that enables gay couples to adopt. (We know, of course, that under California law, same-sex couples may adopt children and that this practice will continue whether the Church remains in or withdraws from the process.)
Apparently, the Magisterium does not take a view as strict as yours and interprets the directive more broadly, allowing there to be remote involvement with agencies that do place some children with homosexual couples but that there can be no direct involvement with placing children with such couples.
I respect your viewpoint and can understand your concern. My concern, as a priest and extension of the bishops' teaching office (they exercise Magisterium; I don't), is to promote fidelity to the Magisterium even when we might find its decisions difficult to accept.
father g,
In reply to your statements, I quote St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church "it must be observed that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even PUBLICLY"
Kenneth M. Fisher
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I do not believe the Faith itself is endangered in disputes over the correct application of a directive such as the one we have been discussing. What does undermine and endanger the Faith itself is challenges to the legitmate exercise of authority by the Magisterium (the teachng office exercised by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him); witness the schism brought about by the obstinancy of the Society of St. Pius X, for example.
The directive we have been discussing originated with Cardinal Levada. If he is satisfied that his directive is being adequately interpreted and applied by Catholic Charities of San Francisco, that should be the end of the story. Of couse, since Cardinal Levada serves at the pleasure of Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father is perfectly free to override the good Cardinal's decision.
fr.g,
What endangers the faith is when errant Prelates place innocent childrens' souls in danger of loss for ETERNITY because they don't have the moral courage to stand up to the sodomites in political control (tyranny)!
I am working to try to bring a person who was molested as an altar boy back into the Church, and I can see first hand the moral and psychological damage it does.
I wonder how you would feel about your Faith if that had happened to you? Chances are you would have lost your Faith as have many others in that sad situation!
We are praying for your soul.
Kenneth M. Fisher
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I know of no reputable sources either within or outside the Catholic Church who equate homosexuality with child molesting as you seem to do. Given that there are far greater numbers of married heterosexual men who molest both boys and girls, should we re-think allowing married heterosexual men to adopt?
Of course not! And Cardinal Levada's directive is not predicated on some misguided belief that homosexuals are a greater risk for child molestation. Rather, it is based upon a truly Catholic understanding of what constitutes family, the ideal being children being raised by a mother and a father. Children's needs can be met far better by "mommy and daddy" than they can by "two mommies" or "two daddies."
It is sad enough that so many children are deprived of the ideal because of the death of a parent, the absence of a parent, the separartion or divorce of parents, etc. We need not place children in already non-ideal situations. Adoption, after all, is a matter of choosing where to place children.
Child molestation and homosexuality are two completely different subjects. Let's not confuse the two in this exchange.
father g,
Now I know you are a product of one of our messed up seminaries!
Yes more married men molest children because there are far more married men than there are sodomites.
But percentage wise is a far more telling story, and percentage wise, a much higher percentage of homosexuals molest children than do married men, or for that matter normal single men.
Now that I see you have used one of the sodomites canned arguments, I am really going to pray for you.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman, Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Fr. f: Let’s look at the facts both of the abuse scandal and in general.
81% of the victims of the priest scandal were male. Of those the majority were in their teens. This simply does NOT fit definition of pedophilia.
Homosexuals statistically abuse minors between the ages of 17 and under at a higher percentage rate than heterosexuals. A 2000 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."
Another Archives of Sexual Behavior in the same year found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" ages 15 and 20.
Still another study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with … homosexuality.”
A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as "chicken hawks" - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. (By the way, “chicken” in the gay vocabulary, refers to a young boy. "The Queens' Vernacular" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16461
(QV), a book which is advertised as, "Everyman's dictionary to the gay underworld" contains 254 words pertaining to young boys. Interesting? Telling, is more like it.)
The statistics do go on and on. It’s just a fact that these abusers had homosexual tendencies.
--Jehu
Oops, I meant "Fr. G."
--Jehu
Post a Comment
<< Home