It’s no secret that the female religious in the United States are corrupt and too often unabashed allies of evil. But it still makes one cringe to find this story about a nun who would dare to actively and unabashedly aid in the murder of children. From the article:
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
Now granted, Quinn is about the average age of these liberal religious (or, ex-religious? see below) types (ancient), so she’ll be going on to her fiery reward soon enough. But the Church leaders in the US must start doing something about this kind of blatant heresy. The fact that Quinn is actively participating in the murder of innocents makes it of even greater urgency.
However, it seems to me that it’s a misnomer to refer to Quinn as a nun or religious, if I understand Cannon Law correctly. In fact, it seems to me that she’s been excommunicated.
According to Canon Law, Chapter VI Article 3, there are three cases in which a religious must be ipso facto dismissed from an order. The first is if one “has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith.” Sr. Quinn meets that charge on about 50 different counts, by her own words (quoted in the article above):
In a 2002 address to the Women’s Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as “immoral”: “I used to say: ‘This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,’” she said. “Then later I said, ‘This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I’d better work to change it.’ More recently, I am saying, ‘All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations [sic].’”
Further, as defined by Canon law, there are eight instances in which a person may incur an excommunication latae sententiae. One of them is the procurement of a completed abortion. Can. 1329 proclaims, further, that one incurs an excommunication latae sententiae if by their aid the act of the person would not have committed the infraction. Therefore, has not Quinn expelled herself from the religious order and the privilege of Holy Communion? It seems to me that an ecclesiastical authority should make the declaration of such (she has already expelled herself; the authority should simply point this out).
Regardless of whether my lay interpretation of Canon law is correct, it’s disheartening to find such a despicable murderer and God-hating reprobate among the religious community. We should pray for the removal of all influence from Donna Quinn, and for her soul.
Interesting post at Athanasius Contra Mundum by Boniface about Protestant converts. It’s always a bit interesting to hear a cradle Catholic’s opinion of us converts, and his (like most) is both very well said and misses the mark completely at some points.
Read the post in its entirety, but basically Boniface is discussing the fact that Protestant converts see the church in a slightly different light than a cradle Catholic, especially with regards to church traditions (true enough). Where he misses the point is in thinking that too often, ex-Protestants are just content to be home, and aren’t too concerned with Traditionalism, at least not until much later.
Not so. Perhaps if I had converted 100 years ago, this would have been the case. There are three points in which an average ex-Protestant (such as myself, who was well-formated in the few good things Protestantism has to offer) disagrees immediately when he enters the Church. In my case, disagreement was apparent before I was ever confirmed.
The first is undoubtedly music. Music in the modern American Catholic Church is pathetically horrible. It sucks. There’s just no other way to put it. The repertoire is tiny, knowledge of the Church’s musical heritage is a level below the average CCM producer, and the skill level of 99% of those who play the music is somewhere between rough and 1st-grade Suzuki. And don’t even get me started on the musical knowledge of the average cradle-Catholic layperson, who knows no other Mass than the Novus Ordo sung to a badly-played Mass of Creation (that blasted instrument of liturgical torture, written by a simi-Protestant who couldn’t make it in the real music entertainment world), and few “hymns” other than “On Eagle’s Wings” and “Here I Am Lord” (neither of which would pass in the most emotionally-sickening Protestant praise-and-worship service I’ve ever attended). Because of this, coming into the Church was for me a major sacrifice. My first impression of the Mass was a terrible contradiction – on the one hand, knowing that the Catholic Church was home, and on the other, realizing that I was going to have to suffer with musical Philistines for the rest of my life.
The second point well-formed ex-Protestants notice is the average Catholic’s abysmal ignorance of Scripture – both laymen and priests. In the Protestant circles I was raised in, the Bible was the end-all be-all of our faith. There was no magisterial authority, no true spiritual counseling – it was just us and God, and the Bible was all He left us. I began memorizing scripture before I could read. I had memorized the entire shorter Westminster Catechism before I was 10. Fundamentalist Protestants believe that knowledge of scripture probably means the difference between heaven and hell. Imagine, then, my shock at hearing my Priest (a 70-year-old priest, and during RCIA, no less) tell someone who was very close to me that their knowledge of scripture was way deeper than his. Imagine my disdain at not knowing a single Catholic who had ever read the Bible all the way through – who had little or no knowledge of the basic Old Testament stories I had been hearing since I was old enough to remember them, and who didn’t even know the meaning of the word “exegesis,” much less how to perform it.
The third point we ex-Protestants noticed was a little more subtle, but at least for me, it wasn’t a secret even before I was officially confirmed. That would be the startling leftism of the average clergy. It’s really somewhat striking how close many mainstream Catholic priests are to a communist apologist. This was, for me, most pronounced in the homilies I heard. Even getting past the priest’s often staggering inability to understand the scripture he was supposed to be talking about, it wasn’t easy (even if it was just occasionally) to hear some pretty leftist ideals being spoken from the lectern.
So I think what Boniface fails to see is that for many of us ex-Protestants, this arrival on our great journey home was both a great joy and a great sacrifice – and that’s a shame. Not a Sunday goes by but some part of me doesn’t wish for a good hellfire-and-brimstone sermon, or a brilliantly executed interpretation of St. Paul – realizing how much better the interpretation would be within the Church, since a Protestant by nature can’t really and fully understand most of what St. Paul was talking about. And oh how I long to sing the strong, God-praising hymns that as a Protestant I grew to love so much. And with that passing wish comes a great cry – mea culpa. Perhaps if we prodigals had never left, we could have helped to stave off the wolves directly responsible for the sorry state of the Church today. Even if not, we like to believe that we would have died in the attempt.
Don’t misunderstand me – I don’t mean to discredit or demean cradle Catholics, especially those like Athanasius and Boniface (who obviously understand well the problems within the Church and work very hard to restore Her former glory) by saying that the Church’s departure from tradition was their fault, or that they didn’t fight hard enough to break the siege. I also do not in any way want to diminish the joy we ex-Protestants feel every time we receive the Blessed Sacraments, or even just in thinking of and being a part of the unity of Mother Church. My point is that we ex-Protestants see more of the flaws in Mother Church than Boniface perhaps realizes. We may even see more that the average cradle Catholic of less than 40 years, because while we didn’t have the whole picture as Protestants, the pieces we did have were well-polished, and we weep to see them so tarnished (as they are at least within the American Church). Many younger cradle Catholics don’t see this, because they never knew anything better. And lest one think we ex-Protestants are just content to be home, rest assured, we intend to beg from you cradle Catholics the leading of the vaward in this coming charge against the wolves. While that boon may mean our butchery, such may be our great penance for departing from our Mother.
The Catholic News Agency is reporting that a relic of the true cross was stolen from outside a Benedictine Monastery in Madrid on September 15th. Our prayers are certainly with those who would apprehend this thief and return the relic to the monastery.
On a side note, one wonders exactly what horrible things come to pass in the lives of those who are stupid enough to steal sacred objects from churches. I imagine life is not pleasant for them. Not long ago, someone stole the tabernacle from our Church. We never recovered it, and while I know I ought to be praying for their salvation and all that, I admit I recieved a bit of pleasure in the thought that their life is likely a living hell because of it. Assuming they didn’t meet an untimely Final Destination-ish death.
Even in those days when I was too “high-minded” to be bothered with such a quaint concept as “religion,” I hesitated to call myself an atheist. The logical contradiction inherent in the atheist’s mockery of faith, contrasted with his staunch faith in the absence of God never agreed with my solid logical formation. For all their worship of logic and reason, it’s very difficult to find an atheist capable of a truly logical argument – most of them seem more interested in the legalization of marijuana.
As it turns out, they’re also cowards. Catholic Online has made it known that atheists at the Center of Inquiry have designated tomorrow as “International Blasphemy Day.” They followed their announcement with a bunch of vague and muddy-minded swill, which we’ll ignore. The jist is that they know God exists, hate Him, and want to test their luck dodging lightening bolts tomorrow.
But why did I call them cowards? Well you see, the majority of their public “reasoning” for having this day of blasphemy actually stemmed from problems caused by Muslims, not Christians. They have cited the Muslim-sponsored UN resolution banning the criticizing of religion, the violent Muslim reactions to cartoons in a Danish newspaper portraying Mohammed in a comical light, and others. But when one looks at the events scheduled for tomorrow – why, there’s not one anti-Muslim event, or even so much as an anti-Muslim statement scheduled. Gosh darnit, it’s all anti-Christian – and most heavily anti-Catholic! I’ll be damned. Why, we ask? You don’t think it’s because these stupid pot-smoking bastards know that Christians don’t shoot you when you mock them and blaspheme their God, do you? Whereas Muslims – well, you know.
There’s more to it than that, of course. From a spiritual perspective, it’s easy to see the demonic influence behind such an event, and demons know Islam poses them no threat. Since they guide and direct the minds of the folks who put this event together, they’ll see to it that their malice is directed against the real enemy.
So much for the triumph of reason.
Fr. Finigan at Hermeneutic of Continuity posted this video a couple of days ago. I’d never seen it before. It’s an excerpt from a famous sermon by Dr. S. M. Lockridge about Jesus as King.
Although Dr. Lockridge was black, and it’s rare to find a black Fundamentalist preacher in the groups I came of age in (not that they don’t exist of course – they certainly do, but they have historically kept to themselves in the South, and it’s rather a shame), his style of preaching is exactly what I have heard a hundred thousand times from pulpits at the fundamentalist college I attended and countless back-country churches.
It’s a funny thing, but 10 years ago I would have probably never imagined myself saying this. I miss this kind of preaching dearly. It’s very much a style of speaking that is particular to my people, and I don’t just mean the accent. It’s poetic, musical, and so very powerful. I miss these guys a lot. Whatever their estrangement from the One True Church, and whatever else we may say about them in terms of their doctrinal peculiarities, it was preachers like these who could once bring a tent revival full of some pretty unsavory characters to their knees in tears and get them right with God.
What a unstoppable force men like these would be as priests.
This latest piece of garbage from the ignorant God-hating priest (and professor at Notre Shame university, that den of Satan) Richard McBrien, who has both entertained and enraged us many times in the past with his ridiculous and dated rhetoric in the NCR and elsewhere – rhetoric against the church he is sworn to serve: he calls the piece “Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration,” and it’s as vile a piece of snobbery as I’ve read in a while.
Full of silly and stupid historical inaccuracies (I hope for the case of your immortal soul, Fr. McBrien, that they aren’t deliberate), leftist accusations against traditionalism as “medieval,” venom and hatred for nuns and other faithful who would dare worship Christ, and at least one serious and glaring theological inaccuracy regarding the Eucharist itself, McBrien seems determined to dissuade those faithful who may be ignorant or new enough in their faith against the practice, which, in this writer’s opinion, is one of the most beautiful things a layperson in the church can engage in.
Let’s take a few quotes from his laughable debacle and present them here for the rest of us to mock. We’ll begin with his opening statement. In a dire tone of false concern, he notes that perpetual Eucharistic adoration has returned to the city of Boston – once strong with the faithful. The Boston Globe, a state-controlled propaganda outlet not worthy of our attention, has already published a piece mocking the practice, and the Holy Body of Christ. As I doubt Michael Paulson’s soul ever had much of a hope of heaven (unlike McBrien, he makes no claims on it), it’s unlikely that the piece alone damned him to hell, but it also didn’t help his chances much. Besides constant subtle mockery of the Church and the faithful, he constantly refers to the Body of Christ as a “wafer.” This is a typical demonic tactic meant to goad believers into wrath. Unfortunately, it works well on this particular believer, but that’s beside the point. McBrien has this to say about Paulson’s mockery:
It was unfortunate, to be sure, that he constantly referred to the eucharistic [sic] host as a “wafer,” “consecrated” or not. However, the distinction between a “wafer” and a “host,” that some letter-writers were quick to insist upon, would be lost on non-Catholics (the Globe reporter himself is not a Christian), and indeed on most Catholics as well.
The constant use of the word “wafer” did lead some readers to conclude that the practice of eucharistic [sic] adoration is nothing less than a form of idolatry. How else explain why someone would sit or kneel hour after hour in adoration of a simple “wafer”?
So are we referring to the practice as idolatry, McBrien? One wonders if maybe your simple mind was one of the ones convinced. Unfortunate, that. I suppose it’s not worth a poor ignorant layman’s time (mine) to explain to you the purpose and beauty of the adoration of Christ. I’m sure it would be lost on you.
On to the theological error. McBrien, as do all “priests” of his ilk, denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No need to accuse him of something he indirectly states, either – he makes it quite plain in this quote from his article:
It was also unfortunate that Paulson described the Catholic belief in the Real Presence (a technical theological and doctrinal term that did not appear in the story) as a “literal” transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus during Mass. The transformation (the medieval word was “transubstantiation”) is sacramental, not literal or physical.
In other words, the bread and the wine retain the properties of bread and wine. They look like bread and wine and taste like bread and wine, but Catholics (and many other Christians as well) believe that the bread and wine have been sacramentally changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Thus, the bread and wine may still appear to be bread and wine, but in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer (formerly called the Canon of the Mass) they have been changed sacramentally, not literally or physically, into the body and blood of Christ.
Wrong. This teaching is heretical, protestant, and has been constantly refuted by the Church since at least Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st century refuted the claims of Gnostics who denied the Real Presence (cf The History of Eucharistic Adoration, John A. Hardon, S.J.). The presence of Christ is in fact real – body and blood, soul and divinity – in the bread and wine, and this has been the teaching of the church since Christ himself said so (John 6:32-35).
This teaching, in response to the denial of the real presence by the heretic Berengarius, was reaffirmed strongly by Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century (thereby beginning a golden age of Eucharistic adoration in Europe). Pope Paul VI quotes him verbatim in Mysterium Fidei, thus (emphases mine):
I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration, there is present the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is present the true blood of Christ which flowed from his side. They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the Sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.
Richard McBrien has therefore declared with his own words that he is a heretic, and has denied one of the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church throughout history. Sad that an atheistic reporter was more accurate on this topic than a priest of the Church. I will quote St. Francis of Assisi regarding those who deny this presence (emphasis mine):
Sacred Scripture tells us that the Father dwells in “light inaccessible” (I Timothy 6:16) and that “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). And St. John adds, “No one at any time has seen God” (John 1:18). Because God is a spirit He can be seen only in spirit; “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). But God the Son is equal to the Father and so He too can be seen only in the same way as the Father and the Holy Spirit. That is why all those were condemned who saw our Lord Jesus Christ in His humanity but did not see or believe in spirit in His divinity, that He was the true Son of God. In the same way now, all those are damned who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ which is consecrated on the altar in the form of bread and wine by the words of our Lord in the hands of the priest, and do not see or believe in spirit and in God that this is really the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Strong words. St Francis bears little patience for those who would deny the real presence of Christ. His presence in the Eucharist is what sustains us in our spiritual lives (and indeed has even sustained saints physically over long periods of consuming nothing but the body of Christ in the Eucharist), not the sacrament itself.
McBrien, however, is not done. After asserting that the practice of Eucharistic Adoration began in the 12th century (incorrect – its roots can be traced back at least as far as the 4th century, and perhaps much earlier), and then making the absurd claim that it gradually fell out of practice thereafter until some nuns revived it in Boston around 1940, he ejects the following statements:
Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI’s personal endorsement of eucharistic [sic] adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.
Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic [sic] devotions. The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.
Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.
So let’s see, McBrien – in these 4 sentences, you have denied fidelity to the Pope’s teachings (which are staunchly in line with historical Church doctrine), denied the need for anything other than the Mass in a Catholic’s life (thereby denying that it is in fact the Eucharist which sustains us spiritually – this, also, has been taught as truth since the Church itself began), and called Eucharistic adoration itself a “step backward.”
I am not a priest, and so far be it from me to judge Fr. McBrien’s heresy. The Lord Himself will judge him harshly. My only request to McBrien would be that he resign his priesthood and quit calling himself a Catholic. No one who denies fundemental Church teachings can call himself that with honesty, and as a priest, McBrien (besides bringing down Divine judgement on himself that I dare not consider) has betrayed everyone who would have otherwise called him a brother. Beware, my spiritual brothers and sisters, of wolves such as these.
Speaking of Moloch – his servants (which, make no mistake friends, Obama and his entire administration undoubtedly are) do not restrict their killing to the unborn alone. Jim Poullion, 63, was shot in front of a Michigan school last Friday by a slave of Moloch as he protested abortion.
Obama, acolyte of Moloch, finally released something which is supposed to pass as a statement of outrage 48 hours after the killing. It strikes me, actually, as being somewhat of a smirking chuckle at the whole incident – sort of the way one chuckles at a child who all-too-vehemently protests an injustice by someone which an adult earlier instructed him to avoid.
Full write-up in Lifenews.com is here.
Obama’s full statement was as follows: “The shooting last week in Michigan was deplorable. Whichever side of a public debate you’re on, violence is never the right answer.” I can’t help but wonder if, in the mind of a twisted fool like Obama, the word “deplorable” takes on a positive connotation…in my younger days it was considered “cool” to refer to something you really likes as being “sick, man.” Call me shallow, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s something of that in Obama’s statement.
In any case, compare that pathetic little write-off to his statement (which he didn’t wait 2 days to release) following the murder of George Tiller, priest of Moloch: “I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.” That sounds like genuine outrage to me. Remember, after this statement, Obama specifically instructed United States Marshalls and other law enforcement agencies to provide special protection to all priests of Moloch as they perform their sacrifices.
It’s often very difficult to have to patiently bide one’s time when the enemy moves so freely. I suppose when one keeps their final reward in mind (and the fact that most of us will soon have the distinct pleasure of sending them to it), the patience comes easier.
UPDATE: EWTN’s site has a good story up condemning the servants of Moloch who have infiltrated the church, and their indiference to Poullion’s murder. You can find it here.
Make no mistake, friends. An ancient evil returned from the Abyss sometime around the turn of the 20th century, and set his fell teeth into our Western culture with a vengeance. His name is Moloch. In ancient Middle Eastern culture, children were sacrificed to him on altars of fire. Today, the West sacrifices children to him on the altars of modern medicine in the scourge of abortion.
I understand the film “Blood Money” is currently looking for a distributor. If the film is as good as its trailer (below), it’s going to be quite the indictment of abortion practitioners and supporters within the United States.
By the way, while I’m on the subject, let me add a note which is fully in line with church teachings, but which is reiterated far too little. Abortion is not a complicated issue. It is not the grounds for an ethical discussion. It does not have gray areas (”high-risk” pregnancies, rapes, etc etc). There is no discussion to be had on this issue. “Catholics” who say otherwise are not Catholic at all. They also aren’t “ignorant” or “mis-informed.” They’re intruders and enemies who serve the god Moloch and his murder cult. Expel them from the Church with whips, and deny them communion as long as they do not repent of their service to the Evil One. Meet the violence and hatred they would spew upon Mother Church with the sword of righteousness.
It would appear, from this report in the National Catholic Register, that the Russian Orthodox Church may be very close to full reunification with Rome. This strikes me as surprising. I was under the impression that attitudes across the iron curtain were not so rosy toward His Holiness, in particular. It does appear that there are still a few issues along those lines:
“There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi [Metropolitan Archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow] acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”
Interesting. It makes me wonder how serious he is, and whether or not this is just political rhetoric. A re-unification with the Church of Russia would be a mighty victory for the Roman Catholic church. There are murmurings of a mass movement of Bishops and lay-folk from the Church of England back to Rome, also. Combine this with the massive return of Protestants in the US to the Mother Church (myself included in that number), and it would appear that perhaps the mighty Reformation has outlived itself. I believe it will only be a matter of time until Mother Church is once again reunited with all of her lost children. Perhaps we’re now seeing the beginnings of that.
Recent Comments