Category: Catholic News

In the United States these days, there is a strong endorsement and celebration of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) ideology. Not only that, but it is considered taboo to have a viewpoint opposing the LGBT movement, the “woke” agenda, and the “tolerant” camp.
Some additions have been made to the movement’s name over the years, and the full acronym is now “LGBTQIA+,” but I will use the abbreviation “LGBT” for short.

Basically, there are two sides to this issue. One side is emotionally sympathetic toward the cause of LGBT people, viewing them as an oppressed minority, and therefore urges that individuals, and society as a whole, should practice God’s love by moving in the direction of acceptance, even celebration, of them. The other side, on the contrary, is looking at the issue, not in terms of acceptance or rejection of people, but rather in terms of truth and falsehood. The argument of this side is that anything that leads to the destruction of the soul must be avoided, and that love (defined by Thomas Aquinas as “that which wills the good of the other”) means trying to help people understand the truth about what behaviors lead to destruction and what behaviors lead to salvation.

How did LGBT Pride Month begin?

How did Pride Month begin in the first place?
The origin of Pride Month, which celebrates the LGBT community, was a series of protests in New York City, now known as the “Stonewall Riots,” or the “Stonewall Rebellion.” The following description of this incident (or series of incidents), summarized from Wikipedia, is based on the reports of the gay community, and does not include testimony from the police, but it is generally believed to be accurate.

The “Stonewall Inn,” a gay bar, was frequently raided by the police because of its association with the Genovese crime family, and because of its exposed go-go dancers. Although the police were mainly there to prevent crime, they also behaved in ways that could be considered harassment of the LGBT people gathered there.

June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall was not the same as any other night. The patrons were feeling sad after the death, six days earlier, of actress Judy Garland, who had been in favor of homosexual rights. They had gathered at the Stonewall Inn in memory of Judy when the police raid began. The repeated raids by the police, plus the death of actress Judy Garland, had taken their patience to the limit, and they began to attack the police officers. The situation quickly escalated into a riot, which continued for the next few days, eventually involving over 2,000 LGBT people and over 400 police officers.

On June 28, 1970, a parade was held to commemorate the first anniversary of the riots. Since then, June has become a memorable month for LGBT people, and Pride Month was born.

U.S. Presidents Who Supported LGBT Ideology

In June 1999, President Bill Clinton, in honor of the Stonewall riots, designated June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.

In June 2011, President Barack Obama added “bisexual” and “transgender” to the categories to be celebrated during Pride Month.

In 2012, then-Vice-President Joe Biden (who is now the President), a member of the Catholic Church, began to publicly endorse same-sex marriage, with complete disregard for Catholic doctrine. Prior to that, as a Senator, Biden had consistently voted against same-sex marriage. Nobody knows why he suddenly changed his mind in 2012; however, support for LGBT ideology has been one of the major elements of the Democrat Party platform since the days of Bill Clinton. It is likely that Biden, a Democrat, supported same-sex marriage for political reasons.

Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24). Biden supports not only same-sex marriage, but also abortion “rights,” and transgender “care,” putting his career ahead of God, and is clearly a Catholic in name only.

Questioning Moral Issues

The Pride events held in Washington D.C. this year, including one held at the White House on June 10, were well attended, and approved of by many, but some moral questions were raised.

In the U.S., we are free to have events and celebrate. (Needless to say, though, you can’t have illegal, publicly unauthorized events.) This means that there is nothing wrong with LGBT people celebrating Pride Month, as long as the events are done in an appropriate way by people who agree with the celebration.

However, at a recent Pride parade, some participants wore costumes that were so extreme that they would normally be considered indecent exposure. A parade that you wouldn’t want your children to see took place in broad daylight.

The Problem Behind the Events

As the website ChurchLaw & Tax points out, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution embraces two concepts: freedom of belief, and freedom of conduct. Unlike belief, conduct can be regulated in order to protect the community.

I believe that the real issue behind the “Pride” events is the question of what kind of activities, what kind of lifestyles, should be celebrated with great “pride” by the non-denominational (but not, officially, atheistic or secularist) U.S. government.

Furthermore, there is a tendency, at government-sponsored events, to condone behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable. People get the impression that as long as they are participating in a Pride parade, they can do whatever they want. Is it too unreasonable to ask that, parade or no parade, a minimum standard of public decency should be maintained? Surely society can insist on that much, without being considered “discriminatory” and “hateful.”

The Bible： Harmful to Children？

The issue of LGBT ideology affects not only the Church, but also (recently) schools as well.

Books that favor LGBT ideology are now being placed in school libraries; some of these books have explicit sexual content.

According to a June 29 article by Colorado Public Radio (CPR) News, conservative parents are protesting against the presence, in school libraries, of LGBTQ books, and books with sexual content. In response, one parent is demanding that the Bible should be removed from school libraries, because of its (supposedly) explicit and inappropriate sexual and violent content.

The article states: “The American Library Association has recorded more than 1,200 challenges in 2022, the highest number since it began keeping data about censorship in libraries more than 20 years ago” (After a Colorado Springs school district banned several books, one parent is requesting they pull the Bible, too | Colorado Public Radio (cpr.org)).
Many states in the U.S. are currently experiencing similar problems.

The Fatima saint Jacinta warned that it is dangerous to neglect the teachings of the Church, which are eternal, and to follow fads. It is a great contradiction to compare the teachings of the Bible, which are the truth, with books that teach a shifting secular ideology, as if they were equal. In any case, there is no doubt that the culture war is intensifying.

Catholic Doctrine Regarding Chastity and Homosexuality

Catholic concerns about homosexuality are not new, and in recent times, the Church has simply reiterated what it has always taught. For example, in October 1986, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict XVI) addressed homosexuality in a letter to the Bishops of Rome as follows (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (vatican.va)):

“Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.”　

So, what exactly is the Catholic doctrine with regard to homosexuality? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following (Paragraphs 2357–2358):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,* tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”** They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

* Cf. Gen. 19:1–29; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:10.

** CDF, Persona humana 8.

Protecting Freedom and Dignity

Of course, homosexual practices are only one way of committing sins of lust (one of the seven deadly sins); the Catechism deals with many other forms of lust as well, some of which it mentions, in a summary section, as follows (Paragraph 2396):

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Cardinal Ratzinger explains that the issue of homosexuality is complex and requires theologically balanced advice. He further clarifies that the use of sexual faculties can only be good between a husband and wife. He goes on to emphasize that the Church’s rejection of false ideas that hinder salvation is not a restriction of personal dignity and freedom, but rather a defense of freedom and dignity. (A truly pastoral approach to LGBT persons must acknowledge sin and proclaim the truth about sexuality.)

Is the church guilty of teaching that sin is sin?

Some people say, “The Catholic Church rejects LGBT people,” and further, “I strive to love and accept all people, because God is love, and he wants us to love one another; not to accept LGBT people is to be a hater who does not practice God’s teaching.” To such people I say, “Calling a sin a sin is not the same as being a hater. God loves all sinners (in other words, all people), and commands us to do the same.

He also hates sin, and wants us to save us from it. To avoid confusion, God has told us clearly (in the Bible and in Church teaching) what things are sins. The Bible says, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Proverbs 14:12). He has done this not because he is mean, but because sin leads to misery, and God wants us to be happy. “

As for the Church supposedly ”rejecting people:” the Catholic Church asks all its members to be faithful to Catholic doctrine and morals. In other words, anyone who believes what the Church teaches, and is willing to put it into practice, may join the Church. Even if a member of the Church does not correctly believe or practice, he can repent and be forgiven and amend his life, and he will remain a member of the Church in good standing. This is because the Church rejects sin, not people.

If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, don’t join it. To accuse those who do believe it of being “haters,” however, is neither honest nor fair.

Anna-Kate Howell against the LGBTQIA+ Pride Mass

As part of the “culture war,” LGBT ideology has already made its way into the Catholic Church. On June 14, for example, the third annual LGBTQIA+ Pride Mass was held at the Jesuit-run Holy Trinity Church, attended by President Joe Biden. Opponents of the Mass point out that, while it is not entirely or clearly contrary to Catholic doctrine, it is nonetheless problematic (Catholic With Same-Sex Attraction Calls on Cdl. Gregory to Cancel DC ‘Pride Mass’ – LifeSite).

Anna-Kate Howell is a 31-year-old student pursuing a master’s degree in theology. She experiences SSA (same-sex attraction), and also opposes the Pride Mass. She confesses that, in the past, she lived a sinful life that was sexually promiscuous, and even, at the age of 26, had a same-sex marriage. The following are the key points from a letter that Anna sent to Cardinal Gregory of D.C., the parish director of Holy Trinity Church.

Anna’s Letter

–          LGBTQ is not our identity. We experience same-sex attraction, but we do not wish to be identified by our disordered impulses. That would be the sin of pride.

–          Clarifying the teaching of the Catholic Church is more important than ever. This is because of the concern that there are people within the Church who exploit ambiguity, and use it as a weapon.

–          We do not celebrate the impulse to sin (the impulse known as same-sex attraction), and we do not want to mislead people outside the Church.

–          People may say, “But participation in Pride doesn’t mean that we agree with every person, every float, or every message we are marching alongside.” True, but I could say the same thing about a Catholic who gives large sums of money to Planned Parenthood: perhaps he or she does not agree with every procedure they perform. Both arguments are ridiculous. Everyone knows that “Pride Month” is mainly about celebrating sexual sins, just as Planned Parenthood exists mainly to perform abortions. For Catholics to show support for either one is scandalous.

–          “Your Eminence [Cardinal Gregory], it is my desire as a Catholic to assume the best of every person I encounter. In that spirit of charity, I choose to believe that you are not someone who wishes to create confusion, scandalize believers and nonbelievers alike, or harm the witness of the Church to persons with same-sex attraction.”

–          “I believe that it is your desire to accompany persons like me with respect and sensitivity, never forgetting that we are human beings imbued by almighty God with dignity that transcends any disordered dispositions from which we might suffer. It is because I believe these things to be true of you that I am asking you with all my heart as your sister in Christ to please put a stop to the Pride Mass. … It will do no good and a great deal of harm for this event to occur.”

Finally, Anna ends her letter with a prayer for God’s blessing.

Take up your cross, and follow me

Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24). This is no easy task. The suffering Anna has gone through must have been extraordinary. I find in Anna’s letter a special strength and persuasiveness that comes from someone who is prepared to carry her own cross.

Cardinal Gregory of D.C. did not order the Mass to be canceled. But I am convinced that her letter gave me, as well as many other Catholics, the courage to continue defending our faith. I pray that the Cardinal will be a good example to the priests and faithful in his diocese, clearly showing them what is right, and guiding them to avoid the death of their souls.

Image: An ancient painting from a Greek tomb. Archaeological Museum of Paestum in Italy

Some stories in the news recently have led to a controversy over the confidentiality of information divulged during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Such confidentiality is known as “the seal of the confessional,” or “clergy-penitent privilege.” The controversy concerns whether it is advisable, or even constitutional, to legally require priests to report to the police any information they have heard in the confessional, if that information relates to the sexual abuse of children.

The states of Washington and Vermont are deliberating on whether to repeal their civil laws that protect the seal of the confessional. In response, Bishop Thomas Daly of the Diocese of Spokane, Washington, told the Washington Examiner, in an interview this week, that Catholic clergy would refuse to comply if the bill (HB 1098) proposed in the state legislature is enacted –LifeSite News, March 3.

The Confidentiality of the Confessions is non-negotiable

Bishop Thomas Daly’s declared that, if such legislation were enacted, he would go to jail rather than break the seal of the confessional. He added that he was confident that his fellow Catholic clergymen would all do the same. Furthermore, Bishop Daly affirmed that “the integrity of the sacraments is non-negotiable.”

According to the March 8 edition of America Magazine, the States of Washington and Delaware will decide within a few weeks whether the bill will become law.

Also, in Wilmington, Delaware, Bishop Koenig of Wilmington stated that the seal of the confessional will not be broken “under any circumstances,” despite the proposed legislation against the sacraments. – LifeSite News, Mar 9.

The Delaware News (March 8) says a decision will be made within a few weeks on whether this bill will become law.

In both cases, it appears that the information has not yet been updated since March 8.

In 2019, the California legislature attempted to enact a law that would have required priests to become mandatory reporters of certain kinds of information heard in the confessional. That attempt failed. Based on precedent, I expect this year’s attempts to fail as well, but I am not convinced that somebody will not try the same thing again someday. There is a strong possibility that similar attempts to hinder the work of priests will find their way into legislatures in the future.

Is the Seal of the Confessional Unnecessary?

On the other hand, a certain priest supported the idea of revoking the clergy-penitent privilege. The following is a summary of the story:

Fr. James E. Connell, a retired Catholic priest from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, wrote an editorial in which he supported the idea of revoking clergy-client privilege. Wisconsin Archbishop Jerome Listecki lamented the disturbing words of Fr. Connell, and stripped him of all faculties to administer the sacrament of reconciliation.- LifeSite, Mar 23.

The right to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation comes from a priest’s archbishop or bishop; therefore, Fr. Connell will no longer be able to hear confessions in any Catholic diocese in the world. If Fr. Connell (or any other priest) were to break the seal of the confessional, he would incur automatic excommunication.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation (or Confession), in which one confesses one’s sins to God through a priest, is different from what the world considers “confession” to a person. Forgiveness of sins involves the salvation of a soul. Some priests have been martyred for not revealing the sins of penitents. And any priest who, under any circumstances whatsoever, reveals information heard during a confession, incurs automatic excommunication.

I believe that Archbishop Listecki’s revocation of the faculties of Fr. Connell was also intended to eliminate the risk of his excommunication. And I hope that the confidence of the faithful that the content of their confessions will remain secret will encourage them to receive more frequently the sacrament that is the salvation of their souls.

Lawyers Consider Legislation to Mandate Reporting of Confessions

In an article published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Eric Kniffin, an outstanding First Amendment lawyer who has defended the rights of over 300 religious and other groups, points out three major problems with the proposed laws in Washington State, Vermont, and Delaware, namely:

1) The proposed laws incorrectly presume that the government could coerce priests to break the seal of the confessional. In reality, if these laws were passed, the result would not be priests “turning State’s evidence;” the result would be priests in jail.

2) The proposed laws incorrectly presume that breaking the seal of the confessional would make children safer. In reality, if these laws were passed, abusers (and other sinners as well) would tend to stay away from confession. Children would be less safe as a result.

3) The proposed laws discriminate against religion. The proposed laws attack clergy-penitent privilege (i.e. the seal of the confessional), but they make no mention of attorney-client privilege (lawyers do not reveal what their clients tell them). In other words, according to the proposed laws, secrecy is OK if it is for secular reasons, but it is not OK if it is for religious reasons. That is discrimination against religion, which is unconstitutional.

Kniffin concludes by quoting Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, who recently wrote, “Protecting children is a matter of crucial importance. Protecting religious faith is too. It isn’t the job of lawmakers to privilege one of those worthy aims over the other. It is to strive, with care and respect, to do both.”

Freedom of religion is important for everyone. In a society that forces priests to choose between excommunication and arrest, no one is truly free.

Revealing the Content of Confessions

As mentioned earlier, what is said in the confessional is strictly confidential.

Two years ago, a book was published that comes close to exposing such confessional confidentiality, namely: Je Vous Pardonne Tous vos Péchés (I Forgive All Your Sins) by Vincent Mongaillard, France. The book is a collection of true stories, provided by 40 priests, about confessions that they have heard. Both priests and penitents remain anonymous; one priest who was interviewed for the book explained that, in order to avoid violating Church law, all personal details of the confessions were changed.

Some excerpts were translated and published by Harper’s Magazine; they range from the comical confessions of a couple in their fifties to the regret one priest felt after giving absolution to a criminal. My impression (based solely on the excerpts I read) is that most of the confessions seem to be about common errors people make (many of them, for example, involve marital infidelity).

Even if the book does not violate Church law, I still feel that the dignity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation would be better served by concealing such stories than by revealing them.

A point made by a priest about the Sacrament of Reconciliation

In an interview on LifeSite News, Michel Rodrigue, a priest also known as a mystic, was talking about the Spiritual War are facing. He emphasized the importance of receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation along with prayer. Regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Fr. Rodriguez gave the following advice:

1) Confess both mortal and venial sins.
2) Confess sins of omission, that is, the things that you should have done but did not do.

Until now, I have not paid much attention to 2), the things I should have done but did not do. However, it occurred to me that the simple fact that I didn’t do some things — things that might be considered duties, or things merely advisable — could be a sign of sloth, which is one of the seven deadly sins.

I realized that just because I am working and keeping myself busy, that does not mean that I am free from sloth. Sloth is the sin of spiritual laziness, which is difficult to become aware of, and troublesome to deal with, without the grace of God.

It is said that, since Vatican II, the number of people going to confession has decreased. I have experienced many times that my mind and body have become lighter after receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I am not the only one. A formerly Protestant acquaintance of mine told me that after he converted and made his first confession, when he received sacramental absolution the first time, he felt a sense of exhilaration and lightness, as if a huge load had literally been lifted from his back.

Mother T. always told me how important it was to pray and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We should not miss out on the benefit of being offered such a powerful sacrament.

The Seal of the Confessional and Religious Freedom

In the United States, the rift between State and Church is growing ever larger. As mentioned earlier, the biggest problem is the pressure that threatens the religious freedom of the Church. Pressures include laws that would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, laws that would make Church-affiliated organizations pay for contraceptives used by their employees, laws that would force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, and (now) proposed laws that would revoke clergy-penitent privilege.

When people talk about requiring priests to break the seal of the confessional, it reminds of me of people who support the “ordination” of women; in both cases, they are talking about something that is quite simply impossible. Just as, in 1994, Pope John Paul II declared that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,” so it is in this case, with respect to the revoking of clergy-penitent privilege: the Church has no authority to do it. The seal of the confessional is not only Church law, it is “God’s teaching;” even if the Pope himself wanted to change it, he could not.

The secular state, however, is not going to readily accept the fact that the Church has rights independent of it.

The real purpose of bringing up the language of “child sexual abuse” in regard to this issue is to sway people’s emotions, and blind their eyes to the fact that the proposed laws seek to change a thing that cannot, in fact, be changed. The proposed laws are not really about preventing child abuse. They are nothing less than an attack on freedom of religion, an attack on the sacraments, and an attack on the Church.

Image: Wooden judge`s gavel. Law. Judge`s office

A recent Fox News revealed that the FBI is attempting to monitor traditionalist Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass, calling them radical traditionalist Catholics (RTC, for short). The news is a reminder that the oppression of traditional Catholics who try to follow the teachings of the Church is about to get much worse.

This fact was documented in a memo circulated within the FBI and revealed by former FBI agent turned whistleblower Kyle Serafin. The memo stated that the FBI was concerned about the dangers of radical “extremist” traditionalist Catholics and “white nationalists” interacting online, according to the memo.

The USCCB condemns “extremism,” while saying the FBI memo targeting Catholics is “troubling and offensive.”　Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded to the FBI memo by saying, “Let me be clear: the USCCB roundly condemns anyone who espouses racism, and fully supports the work of law enforcement officials to keep our communities safe.” – CNA (Catholic News Agency)

According to LifeSite News, the FBI memo claims that “white nationalism” is something which traditionalist Catholics are likely to interact with. They do not provide any evidence for this claim, other than citing the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group well-known for its leftist propaganda. The problem is that placing those terms (“white nationalist” and “traditionalist Catholic”) in the same sentence has the potential to give the impression that traditionalist = racist. A third party, unfamiliar with the Church’s affairs, might believe the label applied by an authority figure, such as the FBI. In that case, who would be held accountable for the reporting? And if the FBI can justify its surveillance of traditional Latin Mass goers, who will it decide to monitor next?

Restrictions on Latin Mass Causing Divisions in the Church

The restrictions on the Mass that began on September 8, 2022, the celebration of the Virgin Mary’s birthday, were intended (so the Pope said) to unify Catholics more strongly.
Stronger unity is certainly important. The Bible tells us that we need to unite against the devil, using the analogy of the threefold cord (Ecclesiastes 4:12). However, why go to all the trouble of restricting the Latin Mass, when the majority of the faithful already celebrated the “Novus Ordo,” the Mass celebrated in the vernacular? Church members who preferred the Latin Mass were in the minority.

When Benedict XVI removed restrictions from the Latin Mass, it brought harmony, not conflict, between traditionalists and liberals. Benedict XVI made it clear that, regardless of Vatican II or the new Missal of 1969, the traditional Latin Mass had never, in fact, been repealed. Moreover, Benedict XVI explained that it was an important part of the Church’s heritage and provided spiritual nourishment to many.

Also, to restrict the Latin Mass in the name of “Unity” is to ignore the fact that the Latin Mass is not a Mass for people of a particular language, such as the Spanish Mass or the English Mass. People from all over the world, whatever their languages, can unite in attending the same Mass, as they did before Vatican II.

Because of the restrictions issued by the Vatican, our Bishop decided to cut down on the number of Latin Masses in his Diocese. The Latin Mass at my parish church was one of the ones that got cut. Many people in my church who had been attending that Mass decided to start attending Latin Mass at other churches. One woman said, “I’m tired of always wondering, What’s next? I don’t want to worry about Church politics all the time, so I will join the SSPX.” There was also a young couple who had to give up their Latin Mass wedding due to the restrictions. They were truly disappointed, saying that they were told that they were too late to book a traditional Latin wedding Mass. After their wedding, they, too, started attending Latin Mass at a church farther away. I knew a middle-aged woman who always spent time praying alone in front of the statue of Therese de Lisieux. On the last day of Latin Mass at our church, she was crying. “I feel betrayed by the Church,” she said. I have not seen her since then.

What is the Real Purpose of the Latin Mass Ban?

What is it about the Latin Mass that makes the FBI and the Vatican so suspicious of it?
The first possibility is that there are political reasons. The real agenda of the FBI, as one senses it in the background, is to eliminate any groups that might give people a different perspective on current politics. Many traditionalist Catholics do not blindly kowtow to the authorities of this world. They fear that, in some cases, by compromising and submitting to authority figures, they would be disobeying God. It is the traditional Catholics who stand with the conservative Christians of other denominations and question the “political correctness” determined by the authorities of this world. And Catholics, because they listen to the Pope, who is not under the thumb of the State, are people whose ideas it is difficult for the State to control completely; in short, conscientious Catholics are not the State’s lapdogs.

Recent survey results confirm that traditionalist Catholics are more likely to take positions contrary to modern political correctness. For example, the overwhelming majority of traditionalists oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. No doubt, then, that the real reason for restricting the Latin Mass is to oppress and persecute those who stand in the way of social “reformers.” If Latin-Mass-goers are labeled as, and treated as, extremists, it will make the society at large more likely to ignore them. (See the LifeSite News article for more information on the survey.)

Corruption and Depravity in the Church

Why (one might ask) are traditionalist Catholics, who are supposed to follow the Pope, complaining because the Pope restricts their Masses? One of the main reasons is that they recognize that these restrictions are more than just restrictions; they are part of the beginning of a battle between light and darkness. It is generally said that Latin is a language that the devil hates unbearably.
And the battle against the devil is endless, as many have warned us, including the Book of Revelation, the prophecies of the saints handed down by the Church, and the numerous apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary prophesying and warning us. All of these prophecies have one thing in common: they warn of the massive corruption in the Church when the end of the world approaches.

The corruption of the Church includes the secularization of the Church. As a recent example of secularization in the church: during the Corona pandemic, parish churches were closed to the faithful, even for Easter. It was the first time in the 2,000-year history of the Church that such a thing had ever happened. The Church was defeated by political and worldly pressures.

Another kind of corruption is the persecution of people who are doing good. A certain priest, who was doing a lot of good work for the pro-life cause, was laicized because he was considered too radical. On the other hand, the Vatican remains silent about priests who continually make statements contrary to Church doctrine, such as approving of homosexual relationships.

The most horrifying corruption is the worship of any deity other than God alone. The Vatican’s highly scandalous Pachamama affair, the recent participation of the Pope and Canadian Cardinals in American Indian pagan rituals, and numerous other such news stories, do not inspire confidence in outsiders that the Catholic Church is an organization whose leaders believe in Christ.

Corruption and depravity in the Church are far more dangerous that the corruption that sometimes takes place in ordinary business organizations. The reason is that the Church’s “business” is the salvation of souls. A corrupt businessman damages his own soul. A corrupt Church leader endangers the souls of everyone in his flock.
It is the Latin Mass that is the most effective weapon against these movements of darkness and the devil. In other words, the Church is now restricting a powerful weapon to fight the devil. Again, this restriction is slowly destroying the Church from within. Unless destruction is the goal, restrictions on the Mass, the treasure house of faith from the past, are pointless.

Are New Restrictions on the Way?

Now, there are rumors that Pope Francis is planning to impose new restrictions on the Latin Mass. The restrictions, as mentioned earlier, have caused traditionalists to move out of the parishes they had been in, and into parishes with Latin Masses. In the end, the division between those who prefer the Novus Ordo and those who prefer the traditional Latin Mass has not changed.

As a traditionalist, I would prefer that my fellow traditionalists stay in the parish church where they were. Every valid Mass brings us the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. If the hidden purpose of limiting the Latin Mass is to “divide,” then it is clearly better to give up the Latin Mass and stay in the same place.

And my concern is not so much the restriction of the Mass itself, but rather the situation of the shepherds in the Church, those who are probably the first target of the devil: the priests. Given the aforementioned trends in the Church, one can imagine that priests who follow God’s teachings are struggling in ways that are not visible. I feel that we need to stay in the same place to encourage those who are involved in God’s work. There is a biblical story that says that if the thieves tie up a strong man, they can rob his house at will (Matthew 12:29). In order to avoid such a situation, I think it should be a priority for faithful traditionalists to stay at their posts, “wearing the armor of God” (Ephesians 6:11) and praying in their God-given places.

Image of ｍail and computers: E-mail Picture. Image: 5677401 (dreamstime.com)

“Gambetti, Cardinal archpriest of the Basilica, immediately after processing back to the sacristy, re-emerged and ordered all of the lights turned off and the Basilica emptied and closed until the next morning. He literally wanted Pope Benedict’s body to lie exposed on the bier, alone, in the dark, unattended, during the overnight hours for the three days of Pope Benedict lying in state in the Basilica.” (From Barnhardt)

The Swiss Guards refused to leave, even when told that they were now off duty, and would have to report for duty again in the morning. They volunteered to stay with the body of Benedict XVI all night.

They are soldiers. It is a well-known fact that soldiers are trained to carry out orders from their superiors. But the desecration of Benedict XVI’s body was an order too terrible for them to follow.

Their actions remind us of St. Paul’s wish for the congregation regarding those united to the Lord, the clergy.

“We beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12)

Image

Even before the news of Benedict XVI’s death became known, Santa Marta (Vatican administrative headquarters) had declared that it would be business as usual, as if nothing had happened. No bells were rung and no flags were flown at half-staff in Vatican City.　(For this and other details, see Rorate Caeli: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-funeral-rites-of-benedict-xvi-and.html)

It is an act that shows no respect for the former Pope.

Benedict XVI’s funeral was held on January 5. In regard to that, an order was issued that all official delegations, except those of Italy and Germany, were not to attend the funeral.

However, delegations from many countries attended anyway, saying,

“We will attend the funeral in a personal capacity, not as officials.”

To the best of my knowledge, such an order has never been issued before. A funeral, and the death of a man who was also the Pope, is supposed to attract a large number of people. It is strange to think that there was some fear of the Coronavirus. Is there some other satisfactory justification?

Benedict XVI’s funeral itself was also very plain and simple.

According to the Vatican, it was his wish. I guess only God knows if they are telling the truth.

I was also surprised at the shortness of the Mass.

The priest is free to choose from four different patterns for the modern Mass; the longest of the four is the most formal, closer to the traditional style of the medieval Mass. For the funeral Mass of Benedict XVI, the second longest of the four was chosen. I was expecting that, unquestionably, since he was a former Pope, Benedict XVI would be honored with the most formal Mass. I was disappointed; it was the second-longest one. (The shortest Mass is often used for the weekly Sunday Mass, so that was indeed not possible.)

Why was I so concerned about the length of the Mass?

Because the Mass is a prayer and offering to God. The Mass is also the center and most important part of the religious life of Catholics. Such an important Mass was short. What that short Mass conveys is the nuance that we should end the prayer for Benedict XVI as soon as possible, and end it with as little ceremony as possible.

“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

(From Benedict XVI’s first speech as Pope)(1)

On December 31, 9:34 a.m. Rome time, Benedict XVI died at the age of 95. He was born on Holy Saturday, April 16, 1927, and baptized with new holy water prepared for Easter. (2)

To each one of us, God offers special blessings. It seems that Benedict XVI had already been selected by God’s special blessing to become Pope on the day of his birth and in the holy water that followed.

That he was a God-fearing pope was evident in his many words and deeds as he remained faithful to the Catholic Faith. I think that his greatest legacy consists of three things, namely:

1. He exposed and punished those responsible for sexual abuse committed in the Church.

2. In spite of the impression in most people’s minds that the traditional Latin Mass had been prohibited after the Second Vatican Council, he clarified that there had been no such prohibition, and that priests were free to celebrate the Latin Mass.

3. He brought about the return of traditional Anglican groups to full communion with the See of Peter.

He then ordered an investigation into the dark side of the Vatican: corruption in the Vatican Bank. Soon after, all of the ATMs in Vatican City suddenly shut down. Then he stepped down as Pope. The day after he stepped down, the ATMs began functioning again.

Even after his resignation, Benedict XVI continued to always wear the white vestments which only the Pope is allowed to wear. Also, he did not leave the Vatican, as is customary when a pope steps down. Also, he referred to himself by the unprecedented title of “Pope Emeritus.” What exactly happened to him during his retirement from the papacy is not known, as Benedict XVI remained silent.

I respect Benedict XVI for his courage and faith, because it seems that he chose not to leave the place where God had placed him, but to carry the burden of being a shepherd protecting his sheep, not running from the wolves.

1. Source: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato.html (retrieved January 2, 2023).
2. . Source: Salt of the Earth (CD). Lighthouse Media, 2011.　
3. . For basic information, see this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/world/europe/debit-and-credit-card-purchases-shut-down-at-vatican.html

For some more details, see:

https://www.fromrome.info/2020/07/09/the-st-gallen-connection-to-those-snarky-vatican-atms/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20intriguing%20historical%20events%20associated%20with,4%2C%202013.%20It%20is%20an%20incontrovertible%20historical%20event.