the black counterfeit church

Aug. 10,1822. - "I see the Holy Father in great distress.  He lives in another palace and receives only a few to his presence.  If the wicked party knew their own great stregth, they would even now have made an attack.  I fear the Holy Father will suffer many tribulations before his death, for I see the black counterfeit church gaining ground, I see its fatal influence on the public.  The distress of the Holy Father and of the Church is really so great that one ought to pray to God day and night.  I have been told to pray much for the Church and the Pope........ Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, plunged in affliction, is still concealed in order to elude dangerous exigencies.  He is very feeble, quite worn out by distress, anxiety, and prayer.  His chief reason for lying concealed is because he can now trust so few.  But he has by him a very simple-hearted, pious old priest, his true friend, whom his enemies on account of his simplicity think it not worth while to remove.  Now, this good old priest is full og God's grace.  He sees, he remarks many things which he faithfully communicates to the Holy Father.  More than once I have had to point out to him in prayer traitors and evil-minded men amoung the Pope's high, confidential officers, that he might give him notice of them.  In this way he has been warned against one who was all-influential up to the present; but who will be so no more."

The Life and Revelations of [Blessed] Anne Catherine Emerich, Vol 2, p. 292

The Pill turns 50

You say that The Pill uses a combination of hormones to mimic pregnancy and prevent ovulation each month. You fail to mention that when this function fails, two back up mechanisms come into play.

Even when The Pill is used properly, ovulation sometime does occur, thus making an egg available for fertilization. The Pill will act to prevent this by thickening a woman's cervical lining, which would make it difficlt for a sperm to reach the egg. Should both these mechanisms fail, thus allowing an egg to be released, fertilized and travel to the uterus, there still is a third means by which gestation is thwarted. This involves the birth control pill changing the uterine lining, in a way that prevents the pertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. This is, by most definitions, chemical abortion, which is why pro-lifers call the birth control pill an 'abortifacient.'

Assuming that there are 10 million oral contraceptive users in the country at any one time, Pharmacists for Life calculates that this method of birth control, alone, causes, annually, between 600,000 and 3,000,000 of what they call 'Infant Homicides.' The fact, although not widely known, is that contracetive drugs and devices are responsible for far more deaths than the commonly known surgical means of killing unborn children.

Posted by Charlie

Parental Partnership in the Mission of Catholic Schools

by Fr. Roger Landry
While folks at BHE work on plans to address the ongoing scandal and crisis in Boston, readers will want to take a moment and read this excellent piece by Fr. Roger Landry, an outstanding priest of the Diocese of Fall River.  His preaching and writings are invariably spot-on, and he's shown a remarkable ability to say exactly what bishops and cardinals should be saying but are for whatever reason unable to say.  I agree with most what he's written here and have some questions as well when it comes to the whole matter of a policy that tries to keep everyone happy.
First of all, here's a link to the piece: Parental Partnership in the Mission of Catholic Schools. And here are a few choice excerpts:

Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial, May 28, 2010
The mission of Catholic schools emanates from the mission of the Catholic Church, commissioned by Jesus to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and instructing them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). The fundamental purpose of Catholics schools is not to make “graduates” who go on to future educational and employment success, but to make “disciples.”
It’s true that some parents opt to send their children to Catholic schools not because of the formation in the faith, but because they provide a superb education, committed teachers and administrators, small classrooms, and a disciplined and safe environment for learning. The primary reason Catholic schools exist, however, is religious. They help Catholic parents raise their children in the holistic context and rich culture of the truths of the faith, so that their children may develop the gifts God has given them and succeed in this life and the next. When Catholic schools accept children from families that are not Catholic or do not practice the Catholic faith, this religious focus remains, insofar as the schools seek to model for those children and their families how much God loves each one of them and, without proselytism, to introduce them to the beauty of the Catholic faith in action, flourishing in a school community based on Christian love.
To understand why the decision of St. Paul’s does not violate Catholic principles but rather affirms and applies them, we need to appreciate some general Catholic principles as well as what makes the application of them to the new situation of children raised by same-sex couples somewhat unique.
The first principle is that the Catholic Church seeks to welcome everyone and to call and assist everyone to conversion and holiness of life. Specifically with regard to children, the Church is never looking for a reason to turn a child away, but sometimes, with great reluctance and sadness, needs to do so for the good of the child. This paradoxical situation happens not just with Catholic school decisions, but with something far more important and fundamental: the sacrament of baptism. The Church obviously desires all parents to bring their children to be baptized, but when they do, the priest, in order to celebrate the sacrament, has the duty to determine that there is a “well-founded” or “realistic” hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith (Canon 868 in the Code of Canon Law). The Church always welcomes the desire of parents to baptize their children, but needs them to understand that baptism is a sacrament of initiation tied to a way of life. If there is no realistic hope that the parents are going to raise the child in the faith — ordinarily by committing to teach the child to pray, take her to Mass, provide for her religious instruction, set a good Christian example at home, and choose godparents who will take seriously her religious upbringing — the pastor, outside of a danger of death situation, must reluctantly delay the baptism. This is one of the most excruciating things a pastor is ever asked to do, because of the importance of baptism for salvation. While it may seem that such a decision only penalizes a child for the parents’ lack of willingness to follow through on their larger commitments, the pastoral decision is actually made in view of the good of the child, who assumes rights and responsibilities upon being baptized. If the child is not going to be nourished in the faith to know and live by those privileges and duties, then the Church defers the baptism, hoping that either the parents will have a change of heart or the child, upon maturity, will freely request baptism as a catechumen. The U.S. Bishops reemphasized these principles in a 2006 document with specific application to children presented by same-sex couples.
With regard to Catholic school admissions decisions, similar principles are at work. The Church never wants to turn a child away. Rather, it has a deep desire to share the blessing of a Catholic school education with as many children as possible. At the same time, however, there is a requirement, for the good of the child, that the parents commit to raise the child in a situation that at least does not contradict the values and formation given at the school. If the child’s education will not be coupled to a way of life consistent with it, the parents and school would be placing the child in a spiritually and morally schizophrenic situation — which is obviously harmful.
Kids being raised by couples who are unmarried, married outside of the Church, or divorced-and-remarried are seldom taught to look at those situations as models, or even as goods to be desired. Very often the parents of those children accept the Church’s understanding of marriage even if in their own circumstances they do not live in accordance with it. There’s a moral conflict, not an inherent one — and in many circumstances the relationship happily can be brought into conformity with the moral law. Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, not only can never be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on marriage, but are often looked at as a positive good. On occasion they are even, scandalously, celebrated with parades and rallies in ways that other non-traditional situations never are. This only magnifies the inherent conflict and confusion a child of a same-sex couple at a Catholic school could suffer.

This last part is where I have a question:

The new situation of children being raised by same-sex couples — made possible and more common by the recent advent of artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and same-sex adoptions — requires the Church to apply our Catholic principles to these new circumstances. The Archdiocese of Denver has a general policy that it has already begun to apply to children of same-sex couples. The Archdiocese of Boston is presently working on one. Any such policy will need to emphasize a double welcoming: Catholic schools seek to welcome all children, provided that parents welcome the Church’s teaching and are prepared to partner with the Church for the good of the child’s overall and integral education.

Is not that final sentence at the crux of the conflict here?  Isn't the first mission to help Catholic parents raise their children in the truths of the faith? Is there really a scenario where a gay couple welcomes the Church's teaching and partners with the Church in their child's education? As Archbishop Chaput concluded, that implicit conflict would be virtually impossible to reconcile with their lifestyle. How does that reconcile with the inability of their union to ever be valid in the eyes of the Church? Is there some policy that enables the couple to say this in order to get their child admitted? What if they do not follow through? Independent of all that, as the Pilot said in their editorial does this not also result in the appearance that the Catholic Church is giving her recognition and implicit seal of approval on the parental relationship? If one homosexual couple attends or marches at a Gay Pride parade, does that mean their child would not be admitted because the couple is flaunting the Church's teaching in a celebratory public parade, but the child of another same-sex couple who doesn't attend the parade is OK? Sure feels like a slippery slope to me.
By the way, can someone send a copy of this article to Fr. Bryan Hehir, Michael Reardon, Mary Grassa O'Neill, and Jack Connors?

Valor

Call Cardinal O'Malley

To support Fr. James Rafferty of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, MA, who defends Church teaching on the disordered nature of homosexual relations, denying admission to a student who's parents are openly homosexual. This good priest is going to be hung out to dry by secular and pseudo-Catholics such as the Catholic School Foundation (call 617-778-5981 to complain), which is agitating for acceptance of homosexuality within Catholic schools.

Call Cardinal Sean O'Mally's office at 617-254-0100 to support Fr. Rafferty.

As you can see below in this craven letter from the group that's subsidizing/secularizing Archdiocesan schools, they're disowning any part of Fr. Rafferty's decision. God help us. (HT Gail Besse)
Subject: From the Catholic School Foundation

Dear School Administrators:
You may be aware from recent publicity about an exclusionary admissions practice at St. Paul School in Hingham, which does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation. In light of those media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation - - namely, that no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.
We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that treats students and families in such a manner. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983.
We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students. So although this incident is disturbing, we know that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all feel welcome.
Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.
With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am
Sincerely yours,

Michael B, Reardon
Executive Director