Tue 30th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 30th Sep 2014 at 06:40am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Cardinal Burke withdraws from London conference at last minute

By on Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Cardinal Burke is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican (CNS photo)

Cardinal Burke is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican (CNS photo)

Mystery surrounds the unexpected withdrawal of Cardinal Raymond Burke as the main speaker at a conference organised by Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice at Westminster Central Hall on June 18.

The Faith of our Fathers conferences, which began in 1996, have traditionally attracted high-profile speakers such as Mother Angela, founder of the Eternal Word Television Network. As prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Burke oversees the administration of justice in the Church. He was to have spoken on “The Restoration of Church Discipline and Evangelisation”. He has long been seen as one of the most outspoken US bishops and, since his elevation to the College of Cardinals by Pope Benedict last November, is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican.

Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, said that Cardinal Burke had been informed by “several devout and faithful people” that his speaking at the conference would be divisive because Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice “are too outspoken and don’t have respect for the bishops”.

“We’re whistle-blowers, and we have enemies,” she said.

She would not say who she thought had issued this warning, but said the impression was given that if the cardinal speaks, “because he’s so close to the Pope it’ll look as if he’s speaking for the Pope and attacking the bishops – which is crazy”, she said.

Cardinal Burke came to prominence outside the Church during the 2004 American presidential elections, when he publicly stated that Democratic candidate John Kerry and other Catholic politicians who supported legalised abortion should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

  • Bellevuetarn

    You know? This is not a ‘Catholic’ blog, at all. The quantity of ‘separated bretheren’ who contribute is ever increasing and one wonders if this is not because they have been brought to believe that the differences between us and them are negligible or, at least, matters that can be resolved by the injection of ‘love’. Faith and religion become ever more matters of ‘love’, feeling and sentiment. Unless you emote adequately for them and to their approval you are being ‘divisive’ or ‘sectarian’.  The idea that Faith is or even can be an intellectual thing is alien to most. It is pure, unadulterated ‘dolce sentire’ Modernism, really. God help us, we are surrounded by unthinking ‘feelers’ who weep and wail when we ask for the use of reason. This is where liberal protestantism has taken us.

  • Timothy Johnson

    What’s the real explanation here? 

    Vatican “conservative” prelates like Benedict XVI and Cardinal Burke have a secret understanding with the English/Welsh liberal bishops. They represent two wings (right and left) of the apostate counterfeit church which eclipsed the Catholic Church in 1958 (exactly as Our Lady of Salette predicted). We find exactly the same approach in the world of politics, both right and left ultimately working for the same anonymous moneyed powers who control every nation denoted “civilised” and “democratic”.

    The ostensible tension between the Vatican and the various national hierarchies is a briliant ruse. It allows “conservatively-minded” Catholics, whose allegiance to the Church is based more on habit, temperament and respectability than on a pure love of truth and hatred of heresy, to fool themselves into believing that the grass is greener in the land of the Vatican usurpers, the seat of the Antichrist.

    Left and right theologies are deliberately promoted and maintained in perfect tension, for without a “right-wing” to fly to, most Catholics would quickly realise that a counterfeit church of Satan has infiltrated virtually everwhere.

    We don’t want Antipope Benedict XVI and his heretical counterfeit cardinals to come to England and poison the sources of the faith even further. They are the very heart of the problem, not its cure.

  • RJ

    Flak jacket on.
     
    Have read the leaflet, Cardinal Burke’s letter and Daphe’s reply. I can understand his decision.

    I have the impression that some people, not Daphne, think it is helpful to berate the bishops.  I don’t think so.
     

  • Bellevuetarn

    No flak jacket needed, I reckon. You only need to shield yourself when you point out unpalatable facts to Bishops ….. so you are quite safe!

  • RJ

    No problem with raising concerns but with the manner of doing it. Courteousy would not go amiss.

  • Nat_ons

    At which ‘heretic’ did the usurping, Antichrist, papacy cease to hold to any orthodox faith that fits your opinion of it? Perhaps it was Paul VI or John XXIII; or perhaps Pius XII, maybe even Pius X for starting off this whole liturgical re-evaluation! All of these could, indeed, be blamed for introducing a modernistic heresy – in regard to the Missal of Pius V etc – even though none considered himself to be doing so.

    Satan is a crafty accuser. He does not always use the most obvious route to entrap souls trusting to themselves. Thus we must all abjure any desire to follow his wiles, not least as accusers .. so looking at the tone of our own language – in regard to God’s beloved called to be saints at Rome - is always a good starting point.

    ‘And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily.’ Romans 16 v 20.

    God bless, Nat.

  • Nat_ons

    Deeply unkind – and I’d guess untrue .. at least in respect of Rome having a will to uphold orthodoxy. It was naive of the truly marvellous Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice to expect any Roman office casually to accept involvement in an attack on the local Ordinary (unless such a move had been prompted with Rome’s prior approval). That the local magisterial officers deserved to be attacked is not the point, they do; but that it was an impolitic move that could not bridge – or at least string, sealing wax and paper over - the gap necessarily yawning between conservativism and libertinism* in the church catholic is the core flaw.

    More important to your point, accepting that popes parlied with Arian Goths and pagan Huns yet still got to be canonised saints should not be forgotten in looking at modern ‘ecumenical’ efforts. It is a dire spirit of equivalence of rites that is the problem ruling out blessedness, not human courtesy, Christian charity, or Roman care. Being able to distinguish between conservative and reactionary and free and libertine is, I suspect, a large part of the current (meaningless) battle between the sincere traditionalist and the actual Tradition .. of living faith in communion with successive magisterium.

    God bless, Nat.

    *Here ‘libertine’ being the only term that properly applies to so many odd local socio-political initiatives that ought rather to be liberally abundant in actual Catholic Action. None of this is entirely new, however, in the annals of Rome’s tug between the puritan and the indulgent spirit. Popes, whether puritanical souls like it or not, have tended to offer indulgence while promoting purity (so too have some popes in waiting).

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com Joan

    I am very surprised that you could read Daphne’s reply and still agree with  the Cardinal. Maybe this letter from the Editor of Catholic Truth will help you to see more clearly that the Cardinal is very wrong on this.
    http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/LetterCardinalBurke.pdf

  • RJ

    By and large a good letter, though the phrase “your capitulation to liberalism” is not one I would agree with. It is not clear that he was capitulating to liberalism. One must assume he was acting in good faith unless proven otherwise (and for that one would have to know his inmost heart or at least have some definite statement).

    Here’s something I found on the internet about St Francis:
    There is a story about St. Francis of Assisi, that the townsfolk wanted him to come and straighten out a priest who was living in sin with a woman. When St. Francis arrived at the priest’s door, instead of berating the priest, St. Francis knelt and kissed his hands. The priest was immediately convinced of his sin and amended his life.

    That was one way of correcting the priest and fulfilling the precept of charity.

    Where is our reverence for our priests?

    That is a traditional response.

  • Bellevuetarn

    After all that has happened, after all that these people have done, after all their shameless lies and artful deceit it is truly very naive and foolish of us to expect any of them to be true to their non-exisent word or to keep to any form of agreement unless it is decidedly in their interest.

    Rome is governed by neo-Modernists and is scarcely any longer discernably Catholic. The neo-heirarchy of England and Wales is a rag-bag of liberal protestants, prancing around in episcopal fancy dress. It looks good but it is merely an empty box, papered and beribboned. You will probably find more authentic Catholicism in other, national heirarchies – ours is no better than a convention of inexpert social workers. The last gentleman of the heirachy of England and Wales was Cardinal Hume, RIP. He was a man whose words one could believe and whose ‘word’ one could rely upon with no questions. I do not know if these people are any longer Catholics, truly, and they do and say nothing to bolster my waning confidence in their being more Catholic than they appear.

  • Anonymous

    I do not think “unkind,” Nat. There is no evidence whatever that Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice was about to place Cardinal Burke in a compromising position with respect to the local Ordinary. This is typical hype put out by the libertine (as you put it) camp. It was scaremongering and it worked.

    As for Popes dialoging with Arian Goths and pagan Huns, I have no doubt that certain such exchanges took place for geopolitical, if not evangelical, reasons. There is, however, a vast difference between dialoging with the leaders of religious error in order to resolve some local problem and praying together with them. It is the duty of Catholic Churchmen to seek to convert the souls of non-Catholics to the true faith, not confirm them in their false religions by respecting their pagan or heretical rites and customs.

    I am not aware of any historical pre-Vatican II case in which Popes or their representatives indulged in shared religious rites with non-Catholic groups. Nor am I aware of a single pre-Vatican II Magisterial example of explicit or implicit recognition of salvific value in any religion outside of the Catholic one. I am, on the otherhand, fully conversant with a history of sustained infallible Magisterial teaching in which such deviances as today’s ecumenical and interreligious initiatives are condemned and proscribed.

    There is no disguising the fact that the Popes of Vatican II have greatly erred in this business of ecumenism, which is at the root of the present liturgical, theological, doctrinal and moral crisis in the Church. The Papal Encyclicals of the Popes before the Council predicted the disaster that would follow from such an error before it happened.

    That’s why ecumenists become silent or abusive when you ask them to provide you with evidence of this so-called “hermenutic of continuity” between the teaching of the Church pre-Council and the modern ecumenical programme, or when you ask for the same in relation to the Tridentine Mass and that of Mgr. Bugnini. It is the absence of evidence of any such continuity, not only in relation to ecumenism and the Mass but also in relation to a whole host of other post-Vatican II novelties and compromises with error that makes them respond so.

    Hence, if the Church is in crisis today, which it surely is, then we need recognise from whence it eminates. Vatican II is the source of the divisions, a mere pastoral Council that became the catalyst for the overturning of the Faith of our Fathers, and no few altars along the way!

  • Timothy Johnson

    To answer your question…

    Roncalli (John XXIII) was the first of the five modern apostate pseudo-popes to afflict Holy Mother Church. As a modernist heretic and freemason (33rd degree), he was not even a member of the Catholic Church.

    Even if Roncalli had been a genuine Catholic, his election would still have been invalid, as Tedeschini and Siri were both elected first, and then illegally coerced into waiving their nomination. They were viewed as too traditional and too hostile to the secret aims of the judeo-masonic powers already infesting Rome. The October 1958 gathering in the Sistine Chapel truly was a “robber conclave”. None of antipope Roncalli’s acts, therefore, including his so-called Ecumenical Council, have any validity in Church law.

    Our Lady of Fatima came to warn us all of this and unmask the conspiracy. Remember the date, 1960, when the Third Secret had to be opened at the very latest, for then “it would become clearer”. The reason “good” Catholics don’t see this is because, lacking a true Pope, they are shepherdless and feel compelled to follow “traditionalist” leaders who, almost to a man, have pooh-poohed the possibility of the temporary suppression of the papacy – as though this would invalidate Christ’s promises! What weak faith.

    When Antipope Ratzinger “canonizes” Antipope Wojtyla, an infallible act if carried out by a true Pope, it will be decision time. “Traditional” Catholics who persist in denying the sedevacantist plight of the Church are going to find themselves in a quandary.

  • GFFM

    I beg your pardon, but many many of his brother bishops, including Weurl in D.C. and Rigali in Philadelphia believe that Burke has made too many headlines when it comes to his canonical work on the obligations of a Catholic politicians, his defense of marriage, his defense of Catholic moral teaching, his support or the extraordinary form and on and on. Many priests and bishops in the States where glad to see him go because of his constant–and I mean constant–speaking out about Church moral teaching beyond abortion. Hence, cowardly is not the word–misguided maybe–but not cowardly. Do an hour long search of American Catholic news sources and you will find out that what I am saying is true. 

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    A supply teacher in a school in which I once taught, was very badly abused by a top Sixth Form student. He could not have been more rude or more threatening towards her.  We were absolutely shocked that this particular student had behaved in this disgraceful manner.  Add to his abuse of this poor woman, his arrogance on the carpet in the Head’s office when he sought to defend his indefensible behaviour and concluded, haughtily: “Sir, I have an untarnished reputation in this school…”  To which the Head replied: “You’ve just lost it.”

  • Wee Jock

    I would advise anyone who is concerned about the state of the Church to read the works of Fr Luigi Villa. One doesn’t have to agree with everything he writes to acknowledge that he has a deeper insight into the problems plaguing the Church than most. 

    Also the book on John XXIII by Franco Bellegrandi, a former editor of L’Osservatore Romano and Papal chamberlain, that was supported by Cardinal Oddi makes rather grim but essential reading.

  • Anonymous

    Well now, for all those ‘devout and faithful Catholics’ who punctiliously wrote and warned Cardinal Burke about the ‘evils’ of consorting with the likes of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice – you need to get your pens at the ready again, as I have found out that openly dissident homosexual priest James Alison has been invited to speak on Catholic premises on the first weekend in July, after the Soho Mass which is held in the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory in Warwick Street, Westminster Diocese.  But of course, those who wrote to Cardinal Burke won’t even bat an eyelid about this . . .

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

     
    Thanks for this information.  We know the scoundrels
    who caused the Cardinal  to weakly withdraw from the Pro Ecclesia
    conference won’t  write to complaint about Alison, but the contributors to
    this blog should do so.  Sheep from goats
    time, folks.
     

    Archbishop’s House
    Ambrosden Avenue
    London SW1P 1QJ

    Email: ‘archbishop@rcdow.org.uk’

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    It is a sad fact of life that Catholics today cannot distinguish between how we respond to SIN and how we respond to HERESY.  Two entirely different things.  If you think that, having kissed his hands, St Francis would have “dialogued” into agreeing with the priest that he was doing no wrong by causing public scandal by living with a woman, then you are mistaken.  I’ve never heard that story before, and  I would like to have the source for it. And neither have I read the life of any saint who failed to condemn sin as the most horrifying thing imaginable, in the light of God. Can you supply the source, then, please, because there are plenty of pious stories on the internet that have absolutely no foundation in truth, and I wouldn’t quote this one without a solid source. I’d like to read the entire context. Our reverence is for the priestHOOD.  Like any other professional person who manifestly departs from professional standards, a priest is not entitled to “reverence.”  If you lived in a parish where the priest was openly living with a woman, would you treat him with uncritical “reverence”?   Are those priests who were convicted of abusing children, due “reverence” – since Canon Law indicated cases where a priest can be returned to the lay state, it is clear that “reverence” is primarily due to the priestHOOD and manifested in the way we treat faithful priests.

    And if the Cardinal wasn’t “capitulating to liberalism” by withdrawing from a conference of orthodox Catholics, what exactly was he doing?  Were the complaints from traditional or orthodox Catholics, thinkest thou?  No, the complaints were from “liberals” and he gave in to them. Capitulated.  End of.

  • Savonarola

    I am not a promoter of condoms, as you mistakenly assume, since I agree with Pope Paul VI in ‘Humanae vitae’ that use of contraception can easily become irresponsible and harmful to society. I also agree, however, with Pope Benedict that there may be some circumstances in which use of contraception can be the lesser evil, and seeing that the ban on contraception does not fall within the Church’s own definition of what constitutes infallible teaching (you probably know that there is some disagreement about which statements fall within the definition – some say it is only one) one may hold this view and remain an orthodox Catholic, like Pope Benedict.

    Some like you want to regard this teaching as infallible, but  merely to assert that it is and then exclude from the Church those who do not agree seems a very circular argument: God’s truth is what I or those who agree with me say it is. God must be very grateful to you for making up his mind for him. This, if anything, is the pride of pharisees and administrators that Jesus inveighed against. And if your view holds you would have to excommunicate most Catholics in this country. Are you prepared for that? It is not so simple after all.

  • Anonymous

    You claim to uphold Humanae Vitae, yet cast doubt on the Church’s competence and authority to declare infallibly on the question of contraception. Since the question of contraception belongs to the natural moral order, however, it is clear that you are gravely mistaken. Here is an appropriate quotation from Humanae Vitae for your correction:
     
    No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.”

    And here is the Encyclical’s correction of your “lesser of evils” argument:
     
    Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

    Note the Pope’s clarification that one cannot contradict the moral order even if the intention is to promote the welfare of an individual, a family or society in general. There goes the argument that condom use is permissible if the intention is to save lives that might otherwise be put at risk by unprotected sex. Note again that the Pope forbids contraception “even for the gravest reasons.”

    Pope Benedict’s personal reflections in the matter in no way overturn the infallible, irreformable moral teaching of his predecessors. What Humanae Vitae states and confirms as established is what Catholics must live by if they value their eternal salvation. The teaching is clear: No compromises with contraception under any circumstances.

    It is not Pharisaical, as you suggest, to declare and to defend this moral truth of the Catholic religion. It is hypocritical, on the otherhand, to claim allegiance to the Church’s infallible teaching while using fallacious argument based on human sentiment to undermine it. I believe I have adequately demonstrated that Humanae Vitae closes the subject infallibly and permanently to all faithful Catholics.

  • Parasum

     But isn’t this:

    “..though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser
    moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a
    greater good…”

    exactly what is implied in the present Pope’s reasoning about using condoms ?

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345793?eng=y

    From Damian Thompson (who is hardly a raving liberal) there is this:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100064572/conservative-catholics-blame-media-for-condoms-story-but-are-they-secretly-cross-with-the-pope/

    The Pope’s position – even with the help of the first link – is as clear as pitch.

    “in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order” – why is that not applicable to (say) manufacturing  armaments ? Or is it somehow “worthy of man” to blast a child’s face with napalm, but “[un]worthy of man” use a piece of rubber in order to avoid propagating an STI ? If the Vativcan took more care of real human beings, rather than obsessing about purely potential (but unbegotten) ones, it might be heard with greater respect. The Church’s position is a confused mess. 

  • Savonarola

    You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but the majority of Catholics in this country are not convinced, nor are scholars of the Church’s teaching. Saying something is the case does not make it so, and it really is hypocritical and cynical to claim this when you know well that you do not carry everyone with you. So, as I say, what are you going to do with the majority who are not convinced – excommunicate them all? Your kind will end up with a Church of which you are the only members.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s some (hardly) breaking news for you, my friend.  According to St Thomas Aquinas, anyone who rejects even a single doctrine, places him/herself outside the Church.  Those who reject Humanae Vitae – a teaching binding on the consciences of the faithful, as stated at the very press conference where it was released – place themselves outside the Church. Nobody can flout God’s moral law and consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. God doesn’t make His Law by majority vote.  Don’t you worry about numbers: what was that St Paul said about numbers, along the lines of “… at the present time there is a remnant left, selected out of grace.” (Romans)  Just make sure you’re part of that remnant. Get off the pill!

  • Bellevuetarn

    Too many people drag too many red herrings in front of us and prattle on for ages when, really, we should be concentrating our energy on fighting those who would destroy the catholic Church. Most do his from within eg: meo-liberal and neo-protestant false ‘bishops’ who do not hold and teach the catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles. I do not care very much for a new Cardinal who ‘consecrates’ a transgender person as a pseudo-Nun. Who did this? Cardinal Burke, no less.

    I am in anguish. Why?  Because for reasons I do not want to go into, here, I feel my mortality heavy upon me. I want to save my soul. I want Christ to save my soul. His ordinary means of doing so should be the Church but now it and its heirarchy seem gravely suspect of error and heresy.

    I doubt the sacraments of this new ‘Church’ because an extensive education in Canon Law and Sacramental Theology are telling me that all is not as plainly sure as it once was. I am finding Priests and bishops who agree with this statement and I worry.

    Whose fault is this? It is that of hose who allege themselves to have been called to assure the integrity of the Faith and of the Church? If our ‘defenders’ are inadequate, perverse of idifferent to the task, what happens to us? What happens to my soul?

  • Anonymous

    Bellevuentarn, God has given us the SSPX for this time of crisis – to take care of us during this period of the new sacraments, new catechism, new rosary, new evangelisation, new everything – and the Holy Spirit has even used the new liberalism in the Vatican to get them to acknowledge that Catholics may receive the the Sacraments from an SSPX priest.

    Also, those priests who agree with you are now able to administer all the sacraments in the traditional rite – see Summorum Pontificum and the recent clarification of SP, Universae Ecclesiae – so do not lose heart. 

    On the subject of Cardinal Burke – do you have a link to a report on the “consecration” you mention?  I’ve never heard that before and I would like to read the original report, if possible.

    Whatever, do not despair. That is the devil’s tactic, to get us to despair.  At the  time of the Reformation in England, Bishop (now Saint) John Fisher proclaimed, much as you are doing: “The fort has been betrayed, even by those who should have defended it.”  Just make sure you stick with the Faith as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles – not from Vatican II – and you need not worry about what will happen to your soul.  God bless.

  • Bellevuetarn

    http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1106.htm  6 June 2011 for the article on Card. Burke

    Dear Editor CT

    Thank you for the kind and encouraging words. I believe as do you, in fact, but I read such rubbish and (intentionally?) subversive claptrap in these columns that I am often very saddened. the fundamental ignorance of the catholic faithful is entirely the fault of the clergy who kept all in the dark for too long and who have never had any true respect for the people and their right properly to understand. It is to the same mountebanks tthat we owe a debt of ingratitude for the mess in which they have placed us.

    There appear to be those among us who are wilfully perverse or intentionally provocative – who come here only to be negative. I refer not to those who criticise or who make contentious.contributions but to those who put ‘feelings’ above Faith and dreamy-eyed sentimentality above Doctrine. This is Modernism, plain and simple. These matters belong to the synthesis of all errors and it is thanks to this woolly-mindedness that the wolves have entered the fold.I find ‘telling it as it is’ very honest (even when perhaps wrong) and wholly productive to healthy debate. Those who really despise the Church will always be with us and they, too, have their place even in Holy Orders, as our experience has taught us.

    It is, on a human level, disheartening to see the bishops are or appear to be more anglican than catholic and when the presbyters of this ersatz church or love act more as unqualified social workers than sacrificing priests and dispensers of the Sacraments. the ‘new church of love’ welcomes and cares for all, save true catholics who wish only to act, say and believe as did their forebears.

  • Anonymous

    Parasum

    Damian Thompson might well be classed a “raving liberal” if he truly penned that piece of emotional nonsense. He’s pushing the old “lesser of two evils” myth which in reality equates to “let us do evil that good may come of it.” If people don’t want to catch STI’s then let them live by the moral law established by God and upheld by His Church. It’s that simple.

    Nor does your own partial quotation from Humanae Vitae meet the “lesser of two evils” argument because the document immediately goes on to declare that any direct action against the moral order, such as using contraception, is forbidden, since such an action does not constitute the choosing of a lesser evil, but rather the direct commissioning of an evil.

    Here is the appropriate paragraph that follows on from the one you quoted. It is quite clear: “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”

    By the way, I should mention that Damian Thompson is quite wrong to state that the Church’s position is a confused mess. The position of the Church is absolutely clear and concise, muddied only by those who rebel against it inventing all manner of specious arguments to confuse the issue and clear the way for sexual licenciousness. There is no confusion for the faithful Catholic who looks at the supernatural, rather than the humanist, picture.

  • Anonymous

    Bellevuetarn

    Please do not be in anguish about the present crisis, God is in charge! You must remember that it is not the Church which is presently erring, but rather Churchmen. The Catholic Church is both infallible and immutable. How else could it have gone through this Conciliar revolution without once making the new Mass, ecumenism, intereligious dialogue, Communion in the hand and a host of other destructive novelties mandatory upon the faithful? If ever proof of the divine nature of the Church was evident, it is in this miraculous absence of any official Magisterial command upon the faithful to participate in the Conciliar revolution. 

    Our Lord cannot, and will not, ever allow this to happen, hence you are not bound by obedience to accept any of the novelties since Vatican II. Indeed, your duty, as with all Catholics, is to stick with the safety and surety of Sacred Tradition. If it contradicts Tradition, refuse it! Stick with the old Mass, the Mass of the ages, and with the Traditional administration of the Sacraments. Reject condemned ecumenism and interreligious Pantheism, and pray for a quick end to this prophesied crisis. You will not go wrong doing that.

    Today’s faithful Catholics are called to suffer martyrdom. Not the bodily martyrdom suffered by the early Christians, but a spiritual martyrdom. We have to look on while those we have trusted in the hierarchy throw our Catholic patrimony to the dogs and create the most astonishing confusion and division amongst the faithful. We see the determination of many Bishops to erase everything of the old Faith by any means available to them. Traditional Catholics are literally persecuted while heretics and pagans are welcomed with open arms.

    Even if he wanted to, with the new Collegiality of Vatican II, the Pope is powerless to act in any meaningful way to stop the rot. Having silently accepted his new role as one amongst equals with the other Bishops, he fails to command as he should. We must pray very hard for Peter, self-imprisoned and bound with the chains of modernism. But don’t lose heart, the end of this crisis is in sight. Our Lord will intervene soon, I’m certain of it.

  • Anonymous

    The Catholic who rejects infallible Church teaching has already excommunicated himself before God, there is no requirement on the part of the Church to make a declaration to the effect. God knows in secret who obeys Him and who rebels against Him.

    Our Lord’s words apply to all moral Church teaching: “ Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. But he who does the will of My Father, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

    The will of the Father is unmistakable in the infallible declarations of His Church, including that which forbids contraception under any circumstances. If Catholics, like Lucifer, choose in their obstinate pride to respond to this divine teaching with Non Serviam, then they are no longer Catholics in any meaningful sense. They will have all the protected sexual promiscuity they want on earth, but they will lose heaven for eternity.  

  • Bellevuetarn

    Dear Martyjo

    Forgive my weakness.

    I hold fast, mostly, but my hands and fingers sometimes start to slip when I become tired. Then I feel bereft and, as God is my witness, I find absolutely nothing in this ecumaniacal mess of liturgical potage they have the brass neck to feed to decent catholics and call it ‘the mass’.

    Their ‘mass’ is but an empty box that changes its colours with the liturgical seasons but every time I lift the lid I find a howling and yawning emptiness, a shop display carton the content of which has been removed.

    Sham academic, journalistic, post-conciliar ‘experts’ do all they can to equate truth with error, erroneously wheedling our hearts and minds to convince us that the Novus ordo is either the same as or as good as the Mass. What do they know? They are  hirelings and false-witnesses. We can never test their views since they hide behind their pretended ecclesiastical titles or their by-lines.

    Modernists and neo-protestants rule, supported by their minions, here and in the institutional Church. Their problem is that we will never quit the field, leaving them to divide and destroy the flock of Christ. Christ will never desert us for we, not they, are the Church.

    I heard Archbishop Lefebvre say; “I do not wish to appear before my God and hear Him say to me; ‘What have you done with your sacerdotal and episcopal Grace? You have contributed to the destruction of the Church with those others’”. His words remain with me as does the sadness of his voice as he said them.
    I will remember them. Laudetur Jusus Christus.

    Pax et Bonum et oremus et pro invicem, Martyjo, for the Devil and his wolves now do prowl about Holy Church both at rome and here, seeking those whose Faith they can destroy. The Shepherds have deserted us but Christ is with us.

  • Anonymous

    You have every right to be angry, it’s the just anger shown by Our Lord when He drove the money changers from the temple.

    How this hierarchy, including the Pope himself, can look out from their high places on the Conciliar chaos they have helped to create, admitting to the devastation before their eyes but denying that they and their Conciliar novelties are to blame for it, truly highlights what Sr. Lucy of Fatima called “the diabolical disorientation” reserved for these times.

    And now they try to canonise their ‘Reformation revisited’ by rushing through the beatification of Pope John Paul II, whose Pontificate was arguably one of the most scandalous in the history of the Church. Just when you think you can’t be shocked any more, they come up with some other novel idea that shakes your faith to the very core. Now Pope Benedict XVI, in whom we had hoped for better things, declares that he will visit Assisi in October to participate in yet another interfaith abomination.

    Our Lady of Fatima has made it clear that the world will only enjoy a time of true peace when the Pope together with the world’s Bishops makes a public and solemn consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

    And how have they responded? They have silenced the supernatural request of Fatima, preferring instead their own humanist search for world peace through these gatherings of all religions and none in Assisi and elsewhere. It is the ultimate insult to the true God who alone can save man, and whose Catholic Church, invincible ignorance aside, is the only means of eternal salvation.

    The problem today is that 40 odd years of Vatican II novelty has so destroyed the faith in the younger generation that they are either completely ignorant of having been robbed of their patrimony, or worse, they are indifferent to it. There is a greater chance of winning a vehement heretic back to the truth than a person who is indifferent.

    God bless, and let us pray hard for the Pope.

  • Bellevuetarn

    Perhaps we might better pray for a catholic Pope – I doubt we have one.

    The robbed the people of its heritage years ago by the introduction of their bastard protestant communion service. What you have never had you will never miss, no? That, my dear, is the basis of and reason for their actions.

  • CathedralMan

    EditorCT

    I read your letter. It only serves to underline how right he was in cancelling this engagement.

    Anything he would have said would have been ‘twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.’ As we all know, you are a past master at this.

  • Bellevuetarn

    That was a rude, snide  little comment. Res ipsa loquitur or – in your case - it speaks fully for you, as you intended it to be

  • Joan

    Everybody I know who has read that letter thought it was fantastic. Why did you not like it?  I’m really intrigued.

  • Bellevuetarn

    Might he not, perhaps, find the truth of the letter to his liking? I understand that a number of new church people find it hard

  • Bellevuetarn

    How very true…and the so-called ‘catholic’ clergy no longer know what Catholic Teaching is. We should be glad of the SSPX and grateful to God for he life and work of Archbishop Lefebvre. Imagine were we left to the ‘expertise’ of those who pontificate in these columns – they may, indeed, have some knowledge and some learning but they have no sensus catholicus. How could they?

  • CathedralMan

    Anyone who read the letter from EditorCT to Cardinal Burke with any objectivity would have seen that the Cardinal was perfectly justified in his decision to cancel his appearance at the PEEP conference. The letter was entirely negative, filled with arrogant, self-righteous condemnation of all those in the Church in the UK who do not hold her narrow view of the Church and the world.

    ‘Your Eminence, allow me to disabuse you.’ If this does not smack of arrogance, I do not know what does.

    One only has to look at the blog of the Catholic Truth website to see how EditorCT dealt with those with whom she disagreed – their words were twisted to mean what they did not, and they were accused of all sorts of calumnies.

    Before you traditionalists start quoting Latin at me, you should try improving your English. Daphne McLeod’s rambling, incoherent, ungrammatical letter was also a confirmation that the Cardinal was correct in his decision to keep his distance from this dangerous faction in the Church. May I quote from Daphne’s letter?  “False teaching is poison to the children’s souls as we know from the vast number who’s Faith it has destroyed.”

    This is from a woman who claims to have written a book.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Bellevuetarn,
    Thank
    you for your kind support. I have no intention of responding to the blogger
    Cathedralman, because he is someone who follows me from blog to blog, always to
    insult me and to do what he so unjustly accused me of doing, twisting my words and
    in every way he can think of, defame my character.

    Regular
    readers of Catholic Truth are convinced (and I’m coming to the same conclusion
    myself) that he is one of the Scottish priests whose double-living we have
    exposed. His bitterness is too personal and too long-lasting to be on behalf of
    others, as he sanctimoniously suggests.

    His fury
    stems from reports in two editions of our newsletter, published bi-monthly since
    March 1999. Our November 2006 edition, headlined: “Scandals Surfacing in Scotland”
    contained reports of an Edinburgh priest who’d had an affair with a married
    woman. The husband wrote, phoned and met with us to ask us to report the
    breakdown of his marriage resulting from this affair, since he didn’t want any
    other Catholic family to go through what his family had gone through. He’d agreed to keep it quiet, at the Cardinal’s request, on grounds that the priest would not be returned to the archdiocese. When this priest was returned to the archdiocese, the husband felt that having his situation published in Catholic Truth was better than going to the tabloid press. Even at that stage, he was doing his best to be reasonable. 

    In the
    same edition, we reported on another Edinburgh priest who had set up a Quest
    group (Quest “supports” actively GLBT Catholics: they  do not accept Catholic teaching on
    homosexuality.) This information was, at that time, publicly available on the Quest website, although they have now made local reports inaccessible to non-members. http://www.questgaycatholic.org.uk/home.asp 

    It is these two priests whom Cathedralman repeatedly names in his attacks on me. 

    Our January 2007 edition carried reports of other priests known to have frequented a “gay” bar in Glasgow and one priest who has since left the ministry (we didn’t report half of what we knew about him and his “boyfriend.”)   In each case, we’d written and telephoned the priests (and one teacher, frequenter of same “gay” bar) to tell them that we really didn’t want to publish. Some agreed that they should rethink the matter and so we published only those who could see nothing wrong with their situation.  In other words, we’d taken the matter to the individual concerned and only when we met with obstinate refusal to accept the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, did we feel justified in publishing in the spirit of St Matthew’s gospel, chapter 18: 15-17.  Cathedralman dismisses all of this, clearly believing that hiding the truth is better than publicity – in stark contradiction to the Pope (whose name escapes me at the moment) who said “It is better that scandal should arise than that the truth be suppressed.”

    Cathedralman’s hatred of me is palpable and extends to anyone who agrees with me on any subject on any blog.  I participated in a discussion on the new Mass Translation on an Irish blog not long ago, and, once again, Cathedralman turned up to shoot personally nasty comments about me and about our newsletter, right, left and centre.  Most of my responses to his attacks did not make it throught the moderation process. Notice that blogs run by “liberals” are always censored.  Cathedralman will now come on and  tell you that I put his comments into moderation, which is true – but that only happened near the end of the active life of our blog, when he was unacceptably nasty, not to me, but to other bloggers.  I published all posts from him which contained nasty remarks about me, but deleted those which were hurtful and insulting to the other bloggers, who were, after all, good enough to give their time and energy to the Catholic Truth blog.
     
    So, I urge you (and the other Catholic Herald bloggers) to ignore Cathedralman.  Pray for him, but don’t enter into discussion with him on my behalf.  I appreciate those kind bloggers who have done so already, but I  fear his hatred of me is one of those devils that can only be cast out by fasting and prayer.

     
     

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Bellevuetarn,

    Thank you for your kind support. I have no intention of responding to the
    blogger
    Cathedralman, because he is someone who follows me from blog to blog, always to
    insult me and to do what he so unjustly accused me of doing, twisting my words
    and
    in every way he can think of, defame my character.

    Regular readers of Catholic Truth are convinced (and I’m coming to the same
    conclusion
    myself) that he is one of the Scottish priests whose double-living we have
    exposed. His bitterness is too personal and too long-lasting to be on behalf of
    others, as he sanctimoniously suggests.

    His fury stems from reports in two editions of our newsletter, published
    bi-monthly since
    March 1999. Our November 2006 edition, headlined: “Scandals Surfacing in
    Scotland”
    contained reports of an Edinburgh priest who’d had an affair with a married
    woman. The husband wrote, phoned and met with us to ask us to report the
    breakdown of his marriage resulting from this affair, since he didn’t want any
    other Catholic family to go through what his family had gone through. He’d
    agreed to keep it quiet, at the Cardinal’s request, on grounds that the priest
    would not be returned to the archdiocese. When this priest was returned to the
    archdiocese, the husband felt that having his situation published in Catholic
    Truth was better than going to the tabloid press. Even at that stage, he was
    doing his best to be reasonable.

    In the same edition, we reported on another Edinburgh priest who had set up a
    Quest
    group (Quest “supports” actively GLBT Catholics: they do not accept Catholic
    teaching on
    homosexuality.) This information was, at that time, publicly available on the
    Quest website, although they have now made local reports inaccessible to
    non-members. http://www.questgaycatholic.or

    It is these two priests whom Cathedralman repeatedly names in his attacks on
    me.

    Our January 2007 edition carried reports of other priests known to have frequented
    a “gay” bar in Glasgow and one priest who has since left the ministry
    (we didn’t report half of what we knew about him and his
    “boyfriend.”) In each case, we’d written and telephoned the priests
    (and one teacher, frequenter of same “gay” bar) to tell them that we
    really didn’t want to publish. Some agreed that they should rethink the matter
    and so we published only those who could see nothing wrong with their
    situation. In other words, we’d taken the matter to the individual concerned
    and only when we met with obstinate refusal to accept the teaching of the
    Church on homosexuality, did we feel justified in publishing in the spirit of
    St Matthew’s gospel, chapter 18: 15-17. Cathedralman dismisses all of this,
    clearly believing that hiding the truth is better than publicity – in stark
    contradiction to the Pope (whose name escapes me at the moment) who said
    “It is better that scandal should arise than that the truth be
    suppressed.”

    Cathedralman’s hatred of me is palpable and extends to anyone who agrees with
    me on any subject on any blog. I participated in a discussion on the new Mass
    Translation on an Irish blog not long ago, and, once again, Cathedralman turned
    up to shoot personally nasty comments about me and about our newsletter, right,
    left and centre. Most of my responses to his attacks did not make it throught
    the moderation process. Notice that blogs run by “liberals” are
    always censored. Cathedralman will now come on and tell you that I put his
    comments into moderation, which is true – but that only happened near the end
    of the active life of our blog, when he was unacceptably nasty, not to me, but
    to other bloggers. I published all posts from him which contained nasty remarks
    about me, but deleted those which were hurtful and insulting to the other
    bloggers, who were, after all, good enough to give their time and energy to the
    Catholic Truth blog.

    So, I urge you (and the other Catholic Herald bloggers) to ignore Cathedralman.
    Pray for him, but don’t enter into discussion with him on my behalf. I
    appreciate those kind bloggers who have done so already, but I fear his hatred
    of me is one of those devils that can only be cast out by fasting and prayer.

  • CathedralMan

    Again, EditorCT is well wide of the mark. I am not, and never have been, a Catholic priest. I am a happily married man of many years’ standing, as I have intimated to EditorCT on a number of occasions. I do not know any of the priests she maligned on her blog. Again, I have intimated this to her a number of times.

    I do not hate anyone, far less EditorCT; however, I hate what she does. She takes it upon herself to destroy the characters of those with whom she disagrees. I think the Nazis did likewise many decades ago.

    Her version of her moderation on her own blog is real fantasy. I note that when she does not have the power to moderate points of view on this blog, she pleads with others to do so. Very illuminating.

    If you cannot stand the heat, EditorCT, saty out of the kitchen. It would be a better place without you, anyway, as Cardinal Burke has come to realise, albeit rather late.

  • Bellevuetarn

    I think, in all charity, that you would do well – in charity to yourself – to take your own advice. The manner in which you write does not suggest a stable and mature attitude and seems – please note I say ‘seems’ - quite devoid of any of the basic understanding of Christian charity for which we should all strive and to which we should all aspire. Whether in that comment I am right or wrong, I do not know. I would wish to be wrong, in fact, but of this I am sure: you do not represent the post-conciliar ‘church of love’ at all well.

    I am sure you are being true to yourself and to your ideas but they do not whisper ‘charity’ or ‘love’ to me so much as the shrilly scream ‘intolerance’ ‘bitchiness’ and the very worst of the sort of female anima that would have gone down a treat at my Seminary – you would have done well as a spoiled post-conciliar seminarian, in fact, a negative state of being that my Sprititual director managed to save me from and thereby brought me to a full and proper end to my early theological studies. There are so many failed priests, out here – all are bitter, most are twisted and none would stand up to much scrutiny beneathe their dog-callars.

    In fine, your opinions are not representative of and I fell sure they are not welcomed by most people who contribute to this blog, and this for reason of their underlaying anger and seemingly deep-seated resentment and hatred. The Church -as a layman as you claim to be – is no place for hatred. All this matters naught to you, I am sure, but yours is such a crudely nasty, dissenting voice that I must be give greater credit to the reasoned words and tones of your victim, EditorCT, than I may to you.

    If you wish to be heard, be less shrill – you may find others more willing to listen to reasoned argument than to poorly disguised spite and spleen.

  • Joan

    I agree with you, Bellevuetarn.   I don’t know whether he’s married or a priest but he’s certainly full of spite, as you say, so I’d hate to think he was a priest.  The Catholic Truth newsletter is full of reports on the state of the Church and only someone who is happy with the state of the Church could hate that newsletter. I would be interested to get to the bottom of Cathedralman’s gripe, as you say, reasoned argument would be better than his uncharitable rants. 

  • Anonymous

    LATEST NEWS 14th June 2011

    It says on the Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice News Flash page that the 2011 Conference has been cancelled.

    http://www.proecclesia.com/page_newsflash.htm

    It seems that someone suggested to the Hall owners that the Conference would harm their reputation. The Management sought advice from Westminster Cathedral and on the recommendation of a spokesman there cancelled the booking.

    Our Lady’s attempts at Fatima in 1917 to warn the world of dire consequences were Russia not consecrated to her Immaculate Heart have been struck yet another blow, this time from the heart of Westminster Cathedral.

    How much longer, we ask, will it be before Divine Retribution befalls us all?

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    This is totally shocking. Please vote in the Catholic Truth poll without delay.  May I respectfully suggest you vote “both” – as often as possible. http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/  It’s at times like this I wish I’d stuck with my original career choice – law.

  • Bellevuetarn

    What can you truly expect from a bunch of people who pervert the Doctrine of the Faith to suit their protestant buddies? They are unashamed Modernist liars to whom Truth means nothing and to whom all is permitted if it helps attain their goal viz. the bastardisation of the Faith toward the creation of one big, untruthful but really sweet and loving and unoffensive, bland religion – rather like Anglicanism. They are Apostates from the Faith, really. They are probably also excommunicated, through their own heretical acts.

  • CathedralMan

    It is wonderful to be psychoanalysed by people who knwo me only from a few postings on a blog.

    As I said, and some are suggesting that I am a liar, I am not, and have never been, a priest. I resent the lack of charity evident throughout EditorCT’s blogging career; it is clear to those who have an eye to see. It is this fearsome, vile attitude that I am trying to counter, nothing more.

    When you disagree with the lady in question, you become the target for all sorts of smears, as I have already suggested; just ask anyone in the church in Scotland who dares to disagree with her. In debate with her and her acolytes, among other smears, I have been called a communist for disagreeing with the murderous General Franco, accused of not believing in the real presence because I entered a debate on Eucharistic Ministers, and being told I did not have a Catholic soul, by EditorCT. The latest was because I said we shouldn’t be preached at by one of her lackeys, Petrus, who had just joined the Catholic Church, after some faith tourism through other religions. In the past such people would have been barred from the priesthood until their lives had stabilised, and in the CT blog he was criticing all sorts, from the Pope downwards, for their lack of adherence to the one true faith. You couldn’t make it up.

    It is these attitudes I am trying to counter. If you cannot accept these, then debate with me. Do not take the CT path and start questioning my motives or sanity. Do not act like EditorCT, throwing her toys out of the pram when she does not have the power to shut me up.

    Cardinal Burke has done the right thing, as I have said. People like EditorCT would have twisted his words to their own agenda, to condemn every bishop from here to Rome. He obviously had advice on the reality of these people and the agenda they hold. You only have to read the letters from EditorCT and Daphne McLeod to realise the kind of people you are dealing with in these organisations.

    My only surprise is that the Cardinal was not alerted to the situation much sooner.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com Joan

    I can’t see anywhere that anyone suggested you are a liar. EditorCT said some people think you must be one of the priests you didn’t like being reported in the newsletter, and in her last post she said she was coming to  that conclusion herself – that’s not calling you a liar.  In the newsletter which is online right now, she actually makes the point somewhere that she never calls anyone a liar although she may say they have spoken something not true because there is a difference.  You’re not being smeared at all, people are just wondering why you are so antagonistic towards EditorCT. I can’t comment on your allegations about being called a communist etc because I would need to read your comments in their context, so if you can send a link to them, that would be very interesting. I don’t know the priest Petrus you mention, but I feel surprised that anyone would be barred from the priesthood because they had belonged to other religions but these days, who knows, I suppose.

    You see how you interpret her decision not to debate with you  any  more, as being “throwing her toys out of the pram when she does not have the power to shut me up”, is not the way I interpret her post. As I see it, she has given up trying to reason with you and, to be honest, I can understand that. Sometimes, if hatred is very deep, there is no way to change that person’s mind, and reading your posts, which contain very hostile personal remarks against EditorCT, I suppose she feels it best not to antagonize you. I don’t mean to ignore her request not to defend her to you, as I don’t think that is what I’m doing, just trying to get to the root of your hatred for my own interest.

    I also don’t think the Cardinal withdrawing had anything to do with EditorCT. To be honest, you seem to full of venom towards her that you want to blame everything on her. That’s not fair.  You are in my prayers.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com Joan

    Very strong words, Bellevuetarn, but I agree with you.  It is unbelievable that the conference has been cancelled. Poor Daphne McLeod, she doesn’t deserve that, at all. I sincerely hope she does sue both the Hall and the Archdiocese.  I know I would sue them.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Bellevuetarn, you are so right: they are, without doubt, unashamed. For example,  Archbishop Nichols’ unashamed support for “gays” and their partners. Homosexual priest, James Alison, is giving a talk on 1 July after the “gay” Mass in Warwick Street.  I’ve written to ask Archbishop Nichols if he’ll be cancelling that event but I know the answer only too well.  Makes a nonsense of all their blether about “justice and peace”. 

    In his correspondence with  Evelyn Waugh after the Council, Cardinal Heenan expressed fears that the faithful would lose respect for the hierarchy, suggesting that it hadn’t happened yet.  He was probably right, at that time (as I pointed out in my email, this evening, to Archbishop Nichols).  It probably hadn’t happened then. But it’s happened now.