30 June 2013


For the Alcoholic Pride parade to be announced.

Or maybe, the Embezzler Pride Parade.


29 June 2013

Great News on the Contraception Mandate Front-- That Is, until the Supreme Court Gets It

10th Circuit US Court of Appeals allows Hobby Lobby's lawsuit to continue, and the District Court enjoins the HHS from enforcing the mandate against it in the meantime.

Great new for private business owners with religious objections.

My prediction at the Supreme Court? 5-4 to enforce the mandate, leading to another round of "We just need one more vote so vote Republican" pablum.

I'm a bit cynical, as you may have noticed.

28 June 2013

They Have Some Valid Points-- They Always Did

The Society of St. Pius X released a statement on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the illicit episcopal consecrations of 1988. In many ways, the statement seems to me to be politically tailored to meet the criticisms of the ousted Bishop Williamson. So I want to emphasize that I am not endorsing the statement on its entirety, which you can read reprinted at Rorate Caeli here. However, there are some real gems in it, that every Catholic ought to ponder. Here are a few:

6- Religious Liberty, as exposed by Dignitatis humanae and its practical application these last fifty years, logically leads to demanding God-made-Man to renounce His reign over man-who-makes-himself-God, which is equivalent to dissolving Christ. In the place of a conduct which is inspired by a solid faith in the real power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we see the Church being shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing other from the State than that which the Masonic Lodges wish to concede to her: the common law in the midst of, and on the same level as, other religions which she no longer dares call false.

7- In the name of a ubiquitous ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and of a vain inter-religious dialogue (Nostra Aetate), the truth about the one true Church is silenced; also, as a large part of the clergy and the faithful no longer see in Our Lord and the Catholic Church the unique way of salvation, they have renounced to convert the adepts of false religions, leaving them rather in ignorance of the unique Truth. This ecumenism has thus literally killed the missionary spirit through seeking a false unity, too often reducing the mission of the Church to that of delivering a message of a purely terrestrial peace and of a humanitarian role of lessening want in the world, placing it thereby in the wake of international organisations.

8- The weakening of faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority in the Church, by introducing a collegial, egalitarian and democratic spirit, (see Lumen Gentium). Christ is no longer the head from which everything flows, in particular the exercise of authority. The Sovereign Pontiff who no longer exercises effectively the fullness of his authority, and the bishops who – contrary to the teaching of Vatican I – esteem that they can collegially and habitually share the fullness of the supreme power, commit themselves thereby, with the priests, to listen to and to follow ‘the people of God,’ the new sovereign. This represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.

6, 7 and 8 seem pretty well-stated to me. Devastating, actually, though of course I would note that the results listed, which I think are not deniable, do not follow from any official change of doctrine but rather from the revolution of many bishops and clergy and religious that preceded and followed the council. They were aided by the ambiguity of the conciliar texts, which ambiguity was no doubt intentional.

In other words, my take [which no one has asked for but which I give anyway] on the issue of 'errors in the texts vs. hermeneutic of rupture' debate is that the texts are capable of a reading consistent with traditional teaching if one gymnasts himself enough, and thus must be given that reading by a faithful Catholic. So far, I'm a hermeneutic of continuity guy.

However, I would add that the texts were intentionally made ambiguous by heterodox participants in the Council and were saved from being necessarily heretical by the Holy Ghost. These texts were thus used intentionally by many to foist erroneous practices and teachings on the faithful, and since the texts in those areas of ambiguity state more poorly the traditional teachings of the Church, the better texts of more ancient documents should be the primary guiding materials. So, don't count me as a person who thinks we just need more time to discover the "riches" of the Council.

But in this, as in all I write, I submit to the Magisterium of the one true Church that Christ Himself founded, and to her correction.

The next paragraph, number 9, I reprint here with some reservations, because it states valid criticisms of the new Mass but is phrased in such a way that I cannot agree with the paragraph in its entirety. So, here it is (with some commentary in parentheses):

9- The New Mass, promulgated in 1969, diminishes the affirmation of the reign of Christ by the Cross (“regnavit a ligno Deus”). (In its implementation, yes. In its texts, relatively, by comparison to the old, yes. In its substance, no.) Indeed, the rite itself curtails and obscures the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (See above.) Underpinning this new rite is the new and false theology of the paschal mystery. (That many hold, yes. As Church teaching, changed by the Council, decidedly not.) Both one and the other destroy Catholic spirituality as founded upon the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary. (See above.) This Mass is penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross. It illustrates the new concept of ‘the common priesthood of the baptised’ which undermines the sacramental priesthood of the priest. (Properly understood, yes. The Mass was redesigned to appeal to Protestants, and we have certainly seen the diminution of the respect for the sacrificial priesthood. But, this is the Mass, and I am uncomfortable with statements that make it seem that these problems are necessarily inherent in it.)

So, there it is.

26 June 2013

Cardinal Dolan, Catholic Bishops Blast Gay Marriage Ruling

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Out of Existence

Good to see a priest calling out contraception, though of course we are rather late on the game. Contracepting spouses were instrumental in making "normal" the idea of non-procreative marriages. Given that, why not allow sodomites to claim "marriage"?

From the full story:

June 24, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A stranger came into the sacristy after Sunday Mass. In an incriminating huff he said, “I have been away from the area for fifteen years; where are the people? And now you are tearing down the school? I went there as a kid.”

I put my hands up to quiet him from further talking and I calmly said, “Let me ask you a question: How many kids did you have?” He said, “Two.” Then I said, “So did everyone else. When you only have two kids per family there is no growth.” His demeanor changed, and then he dropped his head and said, “And they aren’t even going to Mass anymore.”

I never thought I would be asking that question, but since I had to close our parish school, I’ve grown bolder and I started to ask that question more often. When I came to my parish five years ago, the school was on its proverbial “last legs.” In its last two years we did everything we could to recruit more students, but eventually I had to face the fact that after 103 years of education the school was no longer viable.

And this:

Having grown up in the 60‘s and 70‘s with many “Don’t call me Father” Priests, I knew that the problem was a lack of orthodoxy. Twenty years ago when I was ordained, I thought that if I just preached the faith and celebrated a solemn Sunday Mass people would turn around. But, after twenty years, my experience is that a few parishioners will write letters to the Bishop, some will leave murmuring, but the standard fare is benign indifference. Instead of encountering joy and submission to the Natural Law and the Church’s teaching on human life and its dignity, I have found Catholic Christians either complacent or complicit with the Culture of Death. It was reported that over fifty percent of Catholics voted for a pro-abortion president who at a recent Texas Planned Parenthood convention asked God to bless them. If I have found any fruit, it has mostly come from home-schooling families.

I have become convinced that there is a connection, a direct correlation, between contracepting or sterilizing one’s fertility that parleys into an infertile relationship with Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom. In other words, mortal sin is the ultimate barrier method when it comes to God’s gift of grace being implanted within our souls. It is known that Jesus expects us to be faithful in small things before He will entrust us with larger issues.

Western Civilization is in its death throes and the Rule of Law is dead. We've taken God out of marriage, out of procreation, out of school and out of our lives. As a country, should we be surprised?

And what of the Church, what now? The choice is the same as ever. Capitulate to political power or remain faithful to God.

The mainline Protestants capitulated to contraception in 1930, beginning with the Anglicans (whose founding was purely cynical political compromise) via the Lambeth Conference. Try to find one mainline Protestant denomination these days that hasn't capitulated to the "Rainbow". Through the mercy and fidelity of the Holy Ghost, the Catholic Church had held the line on both--though sometimes her pastors sabotage the effort.

The family is superior to the state, which has targeted the family as an existential threat. There is only one institution that stands in the way of the family's destruction. There is only one that is faithful to the Divine and Natural Law.

We stand utterly alone-- humanly speaking. But God is ever faithful to those who follow Him.

We are called to be faithful to the truth, regardless of consequence.

Matthew 23: 33

Canon Avis' sermon on anger seems appropriate today, as the Supreme Court, as expected, struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. You see, if the Court can invent a right to kill babies in the womb it can invent a right to solemnized sodomy.

God will not be mocked forever. If Mary does not act on our behalf, we have no hope of escaping the full weight of His wrath.

Why should this nation hope to escape where Sodom did not?

Only Christ's mercy through the hands of the Mediatrix of All Graces can save us from disaster.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Sound Advice on Anger

In this excellent sermon for the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, by Canon William Avis, ICRSS, Pro-Rector of St. Francis de Sales Oratory:

Dom Quinta post Pentecostem 2013

“But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.”


It can happen when least expected. While driving, shopping, or talking to someone, we become enraged at some affront big or small. Sinful anger is but too prevalent in our day. We are very independent and very impulsive. Our pride, our unmortified dispositions, our want of reverence towards God, and our lack of consideration for our brother make us the easy prey of the sin of anger; and so at the slights and injustices offered us we fume and rage with bitter thoughts, break out into abusive language, and are ready to wreak vengeance.

In order to deal with sins that come from anger, it is necessary to understand the nature of anger itself. Like all the passions, of itself, anger is neither good nor bad. Its goodness or wickedness comes from the object to which it tends. In Sacred Scripture we have examples of both kinds of anger, good and bad. In the Gospels our Lord, moved by a righteous anger at the profanation of the Temple by buyers and sellers, drove out those pervertors of the sacred. His anger sprang from an injustice that was being done, and He did what was necessary to restore justice. In another example, this time of bad anger, the book of Kings recounts how King Saul, jealous of the many triumphs and praises of David, became enraged against his faithful servant and sought to kill him. The wicked king’s anger steamed from his hurt pride and led him to desire the innocent blood of another.

If anger then is neither good nor bad, why then is it listed among the seven capital sins? To answer that we must go back to the beginning. When God created man, He created him good. Within man there reigned a harmony, the body was subjected to the soul, the lower part of the soul (where the passions and emotions reside) was subjected to the higher part (the reason and the will). This upper part of the soul was subjected to God. But by man’s sin, the rebellion of his will against the Divine Will, that harmony was shattered because man had separated himself from the source of his inner harmony--God. Since then man’s body rebels against his soul, and the lower part of the soul against the higher part. Because of this tumult, the passions (anger included) try to override the reason and dominate the will. When a passion succeeds in dominating the will, more often than not we commit sin, because instead of heeding the reason that recognizes evil and knows to avoid it, the will is moved by the whims of the passions. It is therefore imperative for us not to be ruled by our passions but instead to dominate them and keep them in their proper place.

Now, while the offences offered us by our fellow man will always be for us a source of temptation, every command of God is accompanied by His grace, which, if we turn to Him and seek his aid, will enable us to control our dispositions and to possess our souls in peace under every provocation. Anger is one of the seven Capital Vices or fountain-heads of sin, and when we allow it to sway us to the extent of raging against our fellow man and desiring to wreak serious revenge on him, it is a mortal sin.

Such a state of mind and heart is particularly despicable to God, because it is directly opposed to the Divine character and to the benignity and mercy constantly manifested in His dealing with mankind; it is opposed to God’s mercy. It is also opposed to the natural piety due from us toward our fellow man and to Christian charity and justice. Every man is our brother, and bears within himself, as we do, the image and likeness of God; he is called, as we are, to eternal happiness in the beatific vision and possession of God; he has been redeemed, as we were, by the Precious Blood of Christ, and his error or offense toward us has not deprived him of these reasons for our kind consideration and charitable patience.

While some of us are more disposed to anger than others, the fault for our angry flare-ups must not be laid to our disposition. For we should know that we are, as children of God and inheritors of the kingdom, bound to mortify and curb our unruly dispositions, and that there is such a virtue required of us as Christian meekness. Our Lord beckons us to imitate Him. “Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart,” He says.

We, therefore, appeal to the teaching and example of the Son of God. In his first sermon to the world Jesus said: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land.”—They shall be the tranquil masters of their souls—blessed and consoled in the possession of Divine faith and grace here, and of the undisturbed inheritance of Eternal joy and glory hereafter—yes, truly, “blessed are the meek.” And with what moral grandeur Jesus endured the contradiction of an entire nation and the insults of His relentless enemies! While He admonished all and denounced the Pharisees in order to save them, He never uttered an angry word; but “When He was reviled He reviled not, but delivered Himself up to them that judged Him unjustly, and was led to the death of the Cross like a lamb to the slaughter, not opening His mouth.” (Isaiah).

Christian meekness is a virtue which moderates the passion of anger and banishes all rancor, hatred and ill-will from the heart. As Saint Peter tells us in today’s epistle, “Hallow the Lord Christ in your hearts.” Meekness is a manly virtue resulting from self-conquest and founded on reverence for God, consideration for our brother and the sense of indebtedness in the sight of God for our own shortcomings and sins. The moral courage exerted in this virtue does a man the highest honor. It is the enraged and resentful man that is a moral coward. He is enslaved to a self-centered pride; his soul is shriveled from the dignity and resemblance of a man, and is swayed by the mean instinct of the brute.

Now let us look at a saint: Saint Francis de Sales was naturally choleric and had a fiery quick temper, but he won complete control over his disposition by the Grace of God and the practice of meekness. An apostolic man, by his learning, zeal, and gentleness, he converted many Calvinists to the true faith. His success so enraged the enemy of souls that, on one occasion, when the saint was preaching to a large assembly of those in error, the devil inspired one of them to go up to the preacher and spit in his face! The saint, not for an instant unsettled, quietly wiped his face and proceeded with his discourse as if nothing had happened. But his example of Christian meekness was the means of converting many hundreds of his listeners.

We always think that we are angry only for good reason. However in most cases we are wrong. The Doctor of Charity gives good guidance as to how we are to view anger. He says, “It is better to learn how to live without being angry than to imagine one can moderate and control anger lawfully; and if through weakness and frailty one is overtaken by it, it is far better to put it away forcibly than to parley with it; for, give anger ever so little way, and it will become master, like the serpent, who easily works in its body wherever it can once introduce its head.” And as to handle anger, he advises, “When you feel [anger’s] first movements, collect yourself gently and seriously, not hastily or with impetuosity. Sometimes in a law court the officials who enforce quiet make more noise than those they affect to hush; and so, if you are impetuous in restraining your temper, you will throw your heart into worse confusion than before, and, amid the excitement, it will lose all self-control.”

Let us keep ever in mind the words of Sacred Scripture. “The Lord will guide the mild in judgment, and will teach the meek His ways.” “Therefore let all anger and indignation and clamor be put away from you…And be ye kind to one another, merciful and forgiving, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ…And walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself for us as an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” Amen.

24 June 2013

20 June 2013

Bishop Williamson: "Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops?"

From the Tales from Out There division comes the latest Eleison Comments from His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the SSPX and now free-floating in the land of the pseudo-Sede independents.

(An aside: Anyone who reads my blog will know that I have sympathy for the Society and think that they have had cause to claim unjust treatment, at least until sometime after the Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications.  A reader will also know that I don't think the consecrations of the four bishops were justifiable at the time.  The fallout from them of course resonates, and though they have done undoubted good work since then, there has been also the obvious negative fallout. This paragraph is but a summary and a background for your convenience, as the history of the matter is not capable of pithy comment, and I give the benefit of the doubt for good faith to all Catholics of good will on both sides of this unfortunate rift.)

That being said, this Bishop Williamson thing is Exhibit 231 in the dossier of why the consecrations were not a good idea, and why the SSPX needs to become regularized ASAP.

It seems Bp. Williamson seeks candidates for episcopal consecration, and his matter of advertizing it is a bit cavalier.  A trial ballooon, perhaps, but a weird one, consistent with the womenpriest-on-a-barge crowd.  Sad. The last thing anybody needs is a proliferation of non-papally-approved lines of bishops causing a true schism.  The more toothpaste that gets squeezed from the tube, the harder it is to get it back in.

Excerpts from the Eleison Comments I pulled from Fisheaters:

15 June 2013

A number of readers complained at the “Eleison Comments” of two weeks ago on authority being crippled. From its argument that on this side of the “imminent Chastisement” no further Catholic Congregation can be founded on a normal Catholic basis, they concluded that I believe there is nothing more for a bishop to do than to wait for God to intervene. But in that case why did I just spend two weeks in Asia, and why am I now in Ireland ? Likewise they conclude that I will never consecrate another bishop. I say – God willing – just wait.

In fact there is a great deal for a bishop to do to visit and encourage souls striving to keep the Faith when Headquarters of the Society of St Pius X is obviously still intent upon taking it into the arms of Conciliar Rome. On June 17 Bishop Fellay wrote to Benedict XVI, “I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path (of reconciliation with Rome) in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications”. And in the same vein, “Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society” Rome’s counter-proposal of June 13 to his Doctrinal Declaration of mid-April “will not be accepted.” Then it would have been fortunate if the Society had accepted Rome’s terms ?

[...]His astonishing ability to move the mental furniture around in his mind deserves an “Eleison Comments” all on its own, but in the meantime is it any wonder if what is coming to be called the “Resistance” is rising spontaneously all over the world ?

[...]Truth will undermine this ExSPX, as Fr Chazal calls it, just as truth is undermining the Newchurch of the Novus Ordo.

Here are many souls to sustain on their way to Heaven. Do I have any candidates offering themselves for consecration as bishops ?

Kyrie eleison.

Kyrie eleison indeed.  What a mess.

Mortalium Animos

Encyclical on Religious Unity by Pope Pius XI, written in 1928, which every so often I like to reprint.  If you haven't read it, you are cordially invited to do so.  It is a short encyclical, and very instructive on the unity of Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Though 85 years old, its teachings do not have any expiration date listed.



To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature. For since the nations do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace -- indeed rather do old and new disagreements in various places break forth into sedition and civic strife -- and since on the other hand many disputes which concern the tranquillity and prosperity of nations cannot be settled without the active concurrence and help of those who rule the States and promote their interests, it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.

6. We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service. God might, indeed, have prescribed for man's government only the natural law, which, in His creation, He imprinted on his soul, and have regulated the progress of that same law by His ordinary providence; but He preferred rather to impose precepts, which we were to obey, and in the course of time, namely from the beginnings of the human race until the coming and preaching of Jesus Christ, He Himself taught man the duties which a rational creature owes to its Creator: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son."[3] From which it follows that there can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God: which revelation, begun from the beginning and continued under the Old Law, Christ Jesus Himself under the New Law perfected. Now, if God has spoken (and it is historically certain that He has truly spoken), all must see that it is man's duty to believe absolutely God's revelation and to obey implicitly His commands; that we might rightly do both, for the glory of God and our own salvation, the Only-begotten Son of God founded His Church on earth. Further, We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]

7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."[19] How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26]

12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,"[27] not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[30]

13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

19 June 2013

Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Delivered by Canon Raphael Ueda, ICRSS, a beautiful sermon on the need of the soul to have confidence in the Charity of Our Lord and to trust in His Word: 

“The Lord is my light and my salvation.”  The Lord is always with us as a merciful Father who is prompt to forgive our weakness and welcome us. But we are not always present in front of Him like Adam who hid himself as fearing God’s eyes after his fall.

We know our weakness.  We forget so easily grace received and benefits given.  And we have even before our eyes the remembrance of our failures and infidelities.  Then how great is our need to humbly repeat the beautiful prayer of today’s Mass:  “O Lord, forgive us our sins.  Help us, O God, our Savior, for the glory of your Name.”  Indeed, in spite of the continual help of divine grace, in spite of so many confessions and communions, we still need to acknowledge new failures every day, and daily we must begin anew.  
And yet, after all the efforts, we find our hands empty, like St. Peter’s nets.  But let us not be discouraged. Because the more we suffer due to our weakness and our sins, the more we should run to Jesus, with full confidence in the power of His redemption.

Jesus does not leave us as orphans but He has continued to be present with us in the most Holy Eucharist and His Most Sacred Heart through which He continues to remain with us in a tangible way. He is really present in the Holy Eucharist with His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The Introit of the feast of the Sacred Heart says, "The thoughts of His Heart” – the Heart of Jesus – “are to all generations” to deliver them from death, to feed them in time of famine” by His love.  Thus the Heart of Jesus is always in search of souls to save, to free from the snares of sin, to wash in His Blood, to feed with His Body.  And this Heart of Jesus is always living in the Eucharist to satisfy the hunger of all who long for Him, to welcome and console all those who, disappointed by the struggles, sufferings and calamities of life, take refuge in Him, seeking peace and refreshment.  

Holy Scripture says, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore, have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee,” and again, “Son, give Me thy heart.”  This then, is the substance of true devotion to the Sacred Heart: to return love for love, to repay love with love.

The attitude we take in our spiritual life depends greatly upon the idea we have of God, of His love.  If we have a poor image of God, like the slothful servant, or like the mean and angry Master who is jealous of the happiness of his subjects, instead of being impelled to love him and to give ourselves generously to His service, we shall be cold, lazy, calculating and wasting the talent we have received from Our Lord. 

But once we begin to understand that God is Charity and if only we begin to penetrate even slightly the mystery of His infinite love, then everything can change because love calls love.

And the soul who wished to grasp the depths of the mysteries of Jesus Christ and to understand something of His infinite love, will find no better way than to enter within His Heart or to hide itself in the breast of its beloved.  Let us take refuge then in the Heart of Jesus, and contemplate His mysteries and His love, but seek there, too, a shelter for our interior life.  This is a place of retreat which is always at our disposal and we can retire there even in the midst of occupations and every day’s duties.  When rumors, curiosity, gossip and the vanities of the world threaten to overwhelm us, let us quickly retire by a swift interior movement to the Heart of Jesus.

In today’s Gospel Jesus says, “Without Me, you can do nothing.”  Simon and his companions had been fishing all night and had caught nothing.  And if we have had some little experience in the spiritual life, we will recognize that this is often our situation, too.

St. Peter said, “At Thy word I will let down the net. And when they have done this, they enclosed a very great multitude of fishes. 

Jesus said, “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” We need to learn how to carry the Cross with Him, not alone, just by ourselves. We need to learn how to listen to His Word and then believe in Him.

Dear Faithful, Every day, relying on His word, we must begin anew.  Then let us repeat with St. Peter in a similar cry of confidence, “Lord, at Thy word, I will let down the net.”  And then may the Mysteries and all  God’s gifts which we have received purify us, and fulfill their purpose by defending us throughout the struggles, sufferings and calamities of life! Amen.

18 June 2013

Well, There Goes My Plan to Shop the Macy's Going-Out-of-Business Sale

Seriously, can the City possibly do anything ever to make it MORE likely that a person will want to come Downtown?  And I am a fan and resident of our fair city.

Story from STLToday.  Title of my post I gleeped from a commenter there.  Some of my own comments I add in green:

Downtown parking violations will be enforced on Saturdays

City Treasurer Tishaura Jones announced on Tuesday that parking violations in downtown St. Louis will start being enforced on Saturdays.  

Starting on July 1, Jones said that downtown motorists will be required to pay for using parking meters on Saturdays from 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.  Expired meters downtown had previously gone unenforced.  To help ease the change, during the first two weekends of July violators will only issued warnings.  

The move will be a big change for many downtown visitors, especially those attending Cardinal games at Busch Stadium during the day.  Parking meters typically have a two hour limit. 

"I am not going to leave the game, even if I could get a stamp to re-enter, to walk to a meter to deposit more money," said Pat Tuhill, a St. Louis resident.  

Tuhill said meters should provide adequate time to attend a downtown event, such as a four hour baseball game.

Jones said there will be no exemptions "unless a game is after seven o'clock." 

Although, Jones said she is working with a company to allow event rates at meters.  

"That's our goal, but that's down the road," Jones said. 


Jones said downtown is currently the only area in the city without Saturday enforcement.  

The city's parking commission voted unanimously to change the policy in May.

"This change in policy is necessary in order to apply consistent enforcement policies across the city," Jones said in a statement. 

In an interview, Jones said the change was solely to apply a consistent policy city-wide.  She said the old Saturday policy allowed for free parking for the first two hours, but she said it was almost impossible to enforce.   

However, consistent enforcement could be had if all meters in the city were exempt on Saturdays regardless of time, and regardless of neighborhood, so let's skip the term "necessary".

Parking meter violations will continue to be exempt on Sundays.  

The standard fine for parking at an expired meter is $10.  Which is the cost of the least expensive, and least convenient, parking lot for any Cardinals game.  Therefore, check back this time next year and let me know if the fine is $25 or more...

Jones said the change was not a financial decision.  She predicted the additional money intake "will be minimal."  That is a tad hard to believe, yet may unintentionally be true, as the parking enforcement division has in the past lost money -- i.e., more money was used to pay the enforcers and other staff than that which actually came in from meters and fines.  Regardless, there certainly is a negative financial component in discouraging people from visiting Downtown.

Here is a different suggestion, if the City wishes to have a reason to pay patronage jobs in the form of parking enforcement: publicize full-time free parking all Downton street spots, and use the meter readers to patrol the streets to prevent parked-car break-ins.  Bet you it is a money-maker in the long run.


Get Ready for the Next Undeclared War

Who knows why this country wants to keep provoking Russia? And which unconstitutional and immoral war will be the bridge too far? I post this piece by Pat Buchanan under the file named Fatima (general):

A Reluctant Warrior Tiptoes to War
By Patrick Buchanan

Barack Obama has just taken his first baby steps into a war in Syria that may define and destroy his presidency.

Thursday, while he was ringing in Gay Pride Month with LGBT revelers, a staffer, Ben Rhodes, informed the White House press that U.S. weapons will be going to the Syrian rebels.

For two years Obama has stayed out of this sectarian-civil war that has consumed 90,000 lives. Why is he going in now?

The White House claims it now has proof Bashar Assad used sarin gas to kill 100-150 people, thus crossing a “red line” Obama had set down as a “game changer.” Defied, his credibility challenged, he had to do something.

Yet Assad’s alleged use of sarin to justify U.S. intervention seems less like our reason for getting into this war than our excuse.


He has been under severe political and foreign pressure to do something after Assad and Hezbollah recaptured the strategic town of Qusair and began preparing to recapture Aleppo, the largest city.

Should Assad succeed, it would mean a decisive defeat for the rebels and their backers: the Turks, Saudis and Qataris. And it would mean a geostrategic victory for Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, who have proven themselves reliable allies.

To prevent this defeat and humiliation, we are now going to ship arms and ammunition to keep the rebels going and in control of enough territory to negotiate a peace that will remove Assad.


What is the likely reaction to our escalation from humanitarian aid to military aid? Counter-escalation. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are likely to rush in more weapons and troops to accelerate the progress of Assad’s army before the American weapons arrive.

And if they raise and call, what does Obama do?

Already, a clamor is being heard from our clients in the Middle East and Congress to crater Syria’s runways with cruise missiles, to send heavy weapons to the rebels, to destroy Assad’s air force on the ground, to bomb his antiaircraft sites.

All of these are acts of war. Yet under the Constitution, Congress alone authorizes war.

When did Congress authorize Obama to take us to war in Syria? Where does our imperial president get his authority to draw red lines and attack countries that cross them?

Have we ceased to be a republic? Has Congress become a mere spectator to presidential decisions on war and peace?

As Vladimir Putin seems less the reluctant warrior, what do we do if Moscow answers the U.S. escalation by delivering on its contract to provide S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Damascus, which can cover half of Israel?

Obama has put us on the escalator to a war already spilling over Syria’s borders into Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, a war that is now sundering the entire Middle East along Sunni and Shia lines.

He is making us de facto allies of the Al-Qaida-like al-Nusra Front, of Hamas and jihadists from all across the region, and of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi just severed ties to Syria and is demanding a “no-fly zone,” which one imagines the United States, not the Egyptian air force, would have to enforce.

Our elites shed tears over the 90,000 dead in Syria. But what we are about to do will not stop the killing, but simply lengthen the duration of the war and increase the numbers of dead and wounded.

At the top of this escalator our country has begun to ascend is not just a proxy war with Iran in Syria, but a real war that would entail a disaster for the world economy.


15 June 2013

Annual Retreat of the Society of the Sacred Heart

Photo taken during today's sermon by Monsignor Gilles Wach, Founder and Prior General of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. 

10 June 2013

Submit Prayer Intentions for the Institute's Monthly Novena to theInfant King

From the ICRSS Shrine of Christ the King in Chicago:

Monthly novena to the Infant King

Our meditation for June is the virtue of generosity in the Sacred Heart of Our Infant King. 

All intentions submitted by/on June 14 will be included in this month's novena offered by the Institute priests and a special Mass on June 25th.   http://infantkingoffering.org/ 

We truly do appreciate ALL your help, as all the donations we receive through the candles and flowers donated, go towards the restoration of the Shrine of Christ the King in Chicago - building a home for our Infant King. 

"The world could exist more easily without the sun than without the Mass"

--St. Pio of Pietrelcina

07 June 2013

Just be-caceres.

Cardinal Burke on the Sacred Heart of Jesus

From Patheos blog comes this video of the Raymond Cardinal Burke, discussing devotion to the Sacred Heart.

God bless this great Prince of the Church, a beacon of hope to so many!

Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord

Blessed feast day to all of you.  

Today is a first class feast of Our Lord, and so the abstinence obligation is not in force today.  If you have not yet assisted at Mass, note that there is a Solemn High Mass at St. Francis de Sales Oratory tonight at 6:30pm.  Members of the Society of the Sacred Heart may obtain a plenary indulgence, under the usual conditions, if they assist at Mass today.

May we all find rest and mercy in the pierced Heart of Christ, which He suffered to be opened as a wellspring of love for us.

Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus:

O sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before Thy altar eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries, to which Thy loving Heart is everywhere subject.

Mindful alas! that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities, which we now deplore from the depths of our hearts, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone by voluntary expiation not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those, who straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or, renouncing the vows of their baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.

We are now resolved to expiate each and every deplorable outrage committed against Thee; we are determined to make amends for the manifold offenses against Christian modesty in unbecoming dress and behavior, for all the foul seductions laid to ensnare the feet of the innocent, for the frequent violation of Sundays and holidays, and the shocking blasphemies uttered against Thee and Thy Saints. We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Thy Vicar on earth and Thy priests are subjected, for the profanation, by conscious neglect or terrible acts of sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Thy divine love; and lastly for the public crimes of nations who resist the rights and the teaching authority of the Church which Thou hast founded.

Would, O divine Jesus, we were able to wash away such abominations with our blood. We now offer, in reparation for these violations of Thy divine honor, the satisfaction Thou didst once make to Thy eternal Father on the cross and which Thou dost continue to renew daily on our altars; we offer it in union with the acts of atonement of Thy Virgin Mother and all the Saints and of the pious faithful on earth; and we sincerely promise to make reparation, as far as we can with the help of Thy grace, for all neglect of Thy great love and for the sins we and others have committed in the past. Henceforth we will live a life of unwavering faith, of purity of conduct, of perfect observance of the precepts of the gospel and especially that of charity. We promise to the best of our power to prevent others from offending Thee and to bring as many as possible to follow Thee.

O loving Jesus, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary our model in reparation, deign to receive the voluntary offering we make of this act of expiation; and by the crowning gift of perseverance keep us faithful unto death in our duty and the allegiance we owe to Thee, so that we may all one day come to that happy home, where Thou with the Father and the Holy Ghost livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.