"It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." -- Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (1914)

Monday, August 31, 2015

Has Rev. Rosica Gone Heretic?

Now, I'm no theologian so I'm asking those with more knowledge for confirmation, but it seems to me the following is heresy:

"In contrast to the modern-day Pharisees and their followers, true Christians are those who boast in Christ crucified and no other, meaning that they believe that Christ’s work ensured the salvation of all whom He represented and is the only thing that makes the difference between salvation and condemnation. They know that their own efforts form absolutely no part of their acceptance before God. They rest in Christ alone as their only hope, knowing that it is the work of Christ by the grace of God that guarantees salvation."

Isn't this what Martin Luther believed?

The above isn't a quote from the mad monk, but rather Salt & Light CEO, Rev. Thomas Rosica, CSB

If Rev. Rosica has broken away from the Church and believes Luther was right, then why doesn't he do the honorable thing and join the Lutherans? Maybe his pension wouldn't transfer with him. 

Could a Lutheran minister still be a Vatican spokesman? It's certainly not impossible and would perhaps be a gesture of ecumenism. No?

My current theory is the atmosphere Pope Francis has created has given encouragement to the dissidents and heretics among us. Under the previous two pontiffs they stayed under the radar,using innuendo and discretion to advance their hidden agenda. Now they have the confidence to boast of their version of Christianity, perverse or otherwise. There is no better example of this than the German bishops' conference who are on the verge of schism if yet not there already de facto. 

Hopefully, the second half of the synod on the family in Rome this October will settle this mutiny. If the rebels put their cards on the table, the heir of St. Peter will know who is with him and who is against. Then Pope Francis can do what he did as bishop of Buenos Aires and clean house. 

If a 'conservative' pope swept out the 'liberals' from the Curia they'd cry bloody murder. However, if one of their own does it what recourse will they have? 

All Cardinal Burke would need to do is show some sympathy towards them and since he got kicked out of Rome too maybe he'd have some unlikely allies next conclave?

All of this is just speculation on my part. Maybe Rev Rosica is a heretic, maybe he's not. Who am I to judge, anyway?  I do hope I'm not standing next to him on Judgement Day, though. 

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Catholic Theologian Calls Out Cardinal Kasper

Understanding Cardinal Walter Kasper 
The eminent Austrian philosopher Thomas Stark contends that the controversial cardinal is one who filters St. Thomas Aquinas through the lens of Hegel and Kant, which is a mistake.

by EDWARD PENTIN 07/11/2015

Cardinal Walter Kasper

– Wikipedia

VIENNA — What are some of the philosophical underpinnings behind Cardinal Walter Kasper’s controversial proposal to grant certain divorced and civilly remarried Catholics access to the holy Communion in certain cases?

This question was among those addressed at a colloquium held last fall in Vienna, Austria, as part of the launch of the German translation of the book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ. The colloquium brought together representatives from the Cistercian Abbey of Heiligenkreuz, the German speaking academic world, and the traditional organization Una Voce Austria.

Among the featured presenters at the colloquium was professor Thomas Stark, professor of philosophy at the Benedict XVI Academy of Philosophy and Theology (Heiligenkreuz), and professor of philosophy at the University of St. Pölten in Austria.

Stark delivered a lecture in German entitled: “Historicity and German Idealism in the Thought of Walter Kasper.” The lecture examined the philosophical roots of the German cardinal’s theological thought, especially as they pertain to the controversial claims he made in his 2014 address at the Extraordinary Consistory in preparation for last year’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family.

The Register sat down recently with professor Stark to discuss the contents of his lecture, his belief that Cardinal Kasper’s thought can ultimately be traced back to Hegelian philosophy (“the rational alone is real”), and what this means for the German cardinal’s understanding the Church’s teaching and practice.

Professor Stark, can you summarize your talk for the benefit of our English speaking readers?

I asked myself if there are any roots, according to the positions in moral theology, in the philosophical foundation of Kasper’s theology. And then I came across an article that the famous Italian historian Roberto de Mattei had written in Il Foglio, and therein he said that one of the reasons why Kasper is taking his positions is because he is very much influenced by the late [Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph] Schelling. And I tried to find out whether there are any connections to Schelling. …

So I delved more deeply into the whole topic, because I had already agreed to address Kasper’s position and his roots in the philosophy of German Idealism.

My conclusion? I would say that one can clearly see that Kasper’s position is deeply rooted in German Idealistic philosophy, but I would say more so in Hegel than in Schelling.

The problem with this philosophy is the relationship between history and truth. And the problem with Kasper’s position, as far as I understand him, is that he accepts historicism [where history is seen as a standard of value or as a determinant of events] just as a fact. He says, “Well, we are living in a time after historicism in the 19th century; history is the main framework in which we have to think and to live’” and he is quoting [Ernst] Troeltsch, who said the encounter between Christian life and Christian theology and history will be even more problematic than the encounter between theology and science that has already taken place a century ago.

In addition, he seems to just accept the status quo and says, as far as I understand him, “Well, we are living in times that are influenced by historicism and we have to live with it,” and then he historicizes truth, and does many other confusing and perplexing things along these lines, I would say.

I have said several times, “as far as I understand him,” because the problem with this sort of theology is that it is difficult to understand, not because one has to be very intelligent to understand it, but because it is not coherent, in my opinion. And one can only figure it out if one understands the language they use. I mean, it’s not only Kasper; it’s very many people of influence in modern theology. If one reads this language carefully one can easily see an admixture of imitating [Martin] Heidegger, and the influence of Existentialism, some pieces from [Emmanuel] Kant and [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel, which are read into Thomas Aquinas. They read Thomas through the lens of Hegel and Kant, which simply cannot be done, in my opinion. And they mix up various philosophical positions that really can’t be put together in a coherent, logical way.

The way they attempt to intertwine all of their theories forms a sort of pseudo-dialectic that is not really logical and coherent, and they put it in such a way as to provide an opportunity to get away with novel theories without being under the critical view of the Magisterium, because they can always shift to the right and then to the left as needs be.

How do we see the principles you’ve just described play out, for example, in Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to allow remarried divorcees to have access to holy Communion?

Well, this is obvious. They say, “We cannot change doctrine but we must change the pastoral application of doctrine, or the practice,” which is contradictory because you can’t change practice without altering doctrine, because practice follows directly from doctrine. So this is pure fantasy.

For anyone who thinks on this for a moment, it becomes clear that it simply can’t be done. You have to change doctrine in order to change the moral teaching.

Including the Sixth commandment and the Church’s doctrine on the holy Eucharist?

Of course. Yes. So they are essentially destroying the whole sacramental structure of the Church by pretending to be addressing mere “pastoral” considerations. It is a ruse.

Do you think it is a conscious effort to subvert the Church’s teaching? Do you think they are conscious of what they are doing, or that they think it’s all truly acceptable?

Well, I’ve thought about this quite a lot, especially since I’ve studied theology. My main specialty, of course, is philosophy but I have a master’s degree in theology, because I’m of the opinion that, as a Catholic philosopher, one must have real knowledge of theology. And I was obliged to push back against some of my more progressive teachers when I studied theology.

I have often thought about what is really going on in the minds of these people. Initially, I couldn’t figure it out but the more I am exposed to their thought the more I become convinced that we’re dealing with a sort of dementia.

I will give you one of the best examples. If you read, for example, what people like Cardinal Kasper and others have written about the mystery of the Resurrection, you really can’t understand what they are saying. Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead, or did He not? Or is the question of any real importance? They don’t come right out and say, “Well, it’s not important whether the tomb of Christ is empty.” Rather they posit that there could be some kind of resurrection that does not conflict with not actually knowing whether the tomb is empty or not. It’s all very vague and the student walks away not understanding what this is all about. I always say, “Well, the tomb is empty. I’ve been to it very often, and I’m a witness. I’ve been in the tomb of Our Lord several times, so I can tell you that it’s empty.” The question isn’t whether it’s empty but how it got empty.

Do you think it’s a kind of sophism?

It is very much a kind of sophism! And I fear that the real reason for all of this is, tragically, that a lot of theologians today have simply lost not their faith, but let me put it in these words: They have lost their faith in their faith. They are people who don’t believe what they believe, and this is precisely the definition of Modernism. Charles Peguy says that Modernists are people who do not believe what they believe. And I think that it’s exactly correct. These people believe in the Resurrection of Christ with no empty tomb. They believe in miracles without miracles having actually taken place. For example, Kasper does not believe in the miracles that have to do with nature — the calming of the Sea of Galilee, for example, or the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, things like that. He just believes in things like, “Well, there were people who were said to be possessed by demons — with the background, we don’t believe that — and Christ takes a sort of therapeutic approach to them, and this, in fact, was interpreted as a miracle, but of course these things don’t need to be taken in the literal sense." So the Modernists believe in miracles without miracles, in the Resurrection without a resurrection, in Virginity without virginity, etc. And this is why I use the word “dementia” since what they are saying violates the law of non-contradiction.

Is it consistent with Pope St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical on the doctrines of the modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (The Doctrines of the Modernists)? In that encyclical he talks about agnosticism being the beginning of modernism.

Yes, exactly! What St. Pius X wrote about Modernism is of outstanding value to understanding these men. It is exactly, it is exactly what he says.

So would you go so far as to say that Kasper is an agnostic?

I would say Kasper is a modernist, which includes a sort of agnosticism.

Would you go so far as to call it apostasy?

Well, this is a strong word, but I certainly fail to understand how this line of thinking does not lead to apostasy, at least objectively speaking.

What else can I think of someone who writes that dogmas can essentially become outdated and pointless, or that they even can be stupid? And yet this is what I was quoting just today. Or somebody who says, “Well, one of the effects of historicism,” which he openly accepts, “is that ancient holy Scriptures or texts lose their validity”?

I don’t know what people who say things like this really believe, but in my opinion, what they believe is not what a Catholic believes. I mean, I’m really sorry to say that, and I hasten to add that when I started to write my lecture for today, I was very careful to give every benefit of the doubt. I really tried to approach the work of Kasper in a neutral way, because I have every desire to understand him. But when I got deeper into his thought, I was confronted with a system, if there is one, and with ideas that are so shocking that I really can’t see how somebody who is arguing — who is talking in that way — can still be considered a Catholic.

I’m really very sorry to have to say this, but this is the only conclusion I can draw and it is based, not only my suppositions, but on Kasper’s own words.

You spoke in your lecture about a dichotomy between finding salvation in Christ and finding salvation in progress. Can you say a few words about that?

We have certain periods of history, and according to the New Testament, the periods are the following: First, God created the world. After a while, Original Sin happened. And then a different sort of history began, and this is the history in which we find ourselves to this day. And the question is: how will it all end? And there are two metaphysical concepts, as far as I see, regarding the end of history: That which is written down in the last book of the New Testament, where we are informed by God Himself, because it is God’s word, that history will culminate in a huge catastrophe when the world falls away from God. And then Christ will come back after the anti-Christ has reigned for — I think the Church Fathers say — three and a half years or something like that. This is one concept.

So the question is: what is the climax of history in this concept? The climax of history is the time between the Incarnation of Christ and his Ascension into heaven. This is the climax of time, the fullness of time.

And then there is a different way of explaining history and the climax of history, which has it that the climax of history will be reached at the end of history because history is a process of perfection.

This is Hegel, isn’t it?

Yes, this is Hegel. And at the end of history, the climax of history will be reached, and someone who made a modern version of this concept of history in theology was Teilhard de Chardin, who said we are on our way, in process to the so-called Omega Point, whereby Creation and God will be reunited, but because of a process of self-perfection, which takes place in history. And this is the polar opposite of what the New Testament — the inspired written word of God — tells us. And again, Cardinal Kasper tries, as far as I understand him, to join these two concepts under one hat, which are absolutely contradictory. He tries to make one mega-story out of all of this, which just doesn’t work. You have to decide what you believe.

Has the fullness of time already taken place, and are we facing the reign of the anti-Christ, sometime — who knows when, maybe next year, maybe 500 years? You have to decide what you believe. What is the sense of history? One or the other? And all concepts which try to mix these two interpretations of history are just illogical nonsense.

Is this seen in a concrete way in Cardinal Kasper’s proposal concerning the divorced and “remarried” having access to holy Communion?

To get to his practical points: if you have a concept of history like Kasper has, everything and anything is possible. Because what was important yesterday is maybe of no value today, and what will be of any value tomorrow we just don’t know. So it is history itself. I think he thinks it is the objective way of history that tells us what to do and how to adapt to the way of history in which he, to my opinion, has every confidence.

And this has something to do with this whole optimistic atmosphere in the ’60s. People trusted in, what I said in my lecture, they trusted in the vision that modernity produced of its own future. So they thought: things are getting better, people are getting freer, there is a dialectic in history which is an emancipation which makes people freer, and we just have to go along with history and history will somehow tell us where to go. But, I’m sorry, this is not the concept of history that we find in the New Testament, that we find in the Church Fathers, that we find in the doctors of the Church, that we find in Scholasticism or anywhere else. We find this concept in Hegel and in de Chardin but there is no legitimate way for a Catholic theologian to accept these novel concepts. Not as far as I see.

And they have great resentment towards everything in and of the past. Our great grandfathers were stupid idiots, in their opinion. [A friend] says a funny thing: When we go to Venice and we go down by boat through the Canal Grande, and when he is with us, he always says, “Well, look at this city, all these houses in the water. Weren’t the people really stupid at that time. They had no idea how to do things, they had no idea of architecture. It’s all rubbish.”

Everybody loves medieval things. I think all those people who have this resentment against the Middle Ages should not be permitted to go into cities like Venice. This was — of course — a joke. One has to add that clarification in these humorless times of political correctness.

Cardinal Kasper is reported to have said at the 2014 Synod that he was of the belief that all of the German bishops were in support of his position. How would you respond?

This is not true. If Cardinal Kasper really said that, then he is either not well-informed, or he is telling falsehood. As I know from an absolutely reliable source there are at least three German bishops, not auxiliary bishops … who did not agree with the paper of the German bishops’ conference, supporting Cardinal Kasper’s position and presented by Cardinal Marx at the synod. They explicitly voted against it. These Bishops are: Bishop [Gregor] Hanke of Eichstätt, Bishop [Rudolf] Voderholzer of Regensburg and Bishop [Konrad] Zdarsa of Augsburg. And I know two of them personally, one of them quite well.

So it was clear to me from the beginning, that they couldn’t have agreed with the paper in question. So to suggest that all the German bishops back the Kasper clique is just a lie. But there is much lying in today’s Church, and it is all about an ideology that is in opposition to constant Church teaching of two millennia, which nobody, absolutely nobody, ever has the right or even the power to change.

Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/understanding-cardinal-walter-kasper/#ixzz3fgKYB2qD

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Michael Coren: Literary and now Religious Prostitute

There are reports from Toronto that 'ex-Catholic' Michael Coren announced he will seek 'Ordination' in the 'Church' of England founded by King Henry VIII some 1,500 years after Jesus Christ walked among us. This was predicted here on April 29 in a post entitled, "Rev Michael Coren". What else does one do with a Masters Of Divinity degree?

Actually, one cannot be an "ex-Catholic". It's a membership for eternity and he'll be judged accordingly when his time comes. One can be a dissident, heretical, or schismatic Catholic, but once you've accepted the Truth there is no denying it without damning consequences. The saddest part of this scandal is Coren knows this and more.

In 1994 Christopher Ovsenny informed Coren that another writer had called him a 'literary prostitute'. In the same article Ovsenny quotes Coren's wife as saying "Who is this man I'm sleeping with?" in response to a cheap shot at Mother Teresa. I'm told Bernadette Coren is a practicing, orthodox Catholic so I wonder what she's thinking now.

In his social media platforms Coren accuses anyone sticking to Church teaching on homosexuality as, of course, homophobic.  Anyone who has challenged his defection or new 'beliefs' is angry, mean, bigoted, etc. So either Mrs Coren has changed her mind too or Mr doesn't think well of his wife anymore.

On his Facebook page, Coren ridicules Father Shannon Collins who emailed him in an apparent attempt to save his soul. Fr Collins asked why he would join the Anglican 'Church' of Canada, "where everything changes except the bread and wine." What is sadly obvious now is that it's indeed the perfect place for him. He's 'opened' his mind all his life, the way prostitutes open their legs.

For cradle Catholics catechized in the Ontario 'Catholic' school system, it's not hard to understand why they would leave the Church. For the most part, unless one seeks the truth elsewhere, students leave the school system ignorant of Church teachings. For someone as well read as Coren, for someone who wrote "Why Catholics Are Right" it's hard to believe an informed Catholic can suddenly change his mind. Coren either never believed in Catholicism or he still does but will join a schismatic Christian community and embrace heresy anyway.

It begs the question, why? In my opinion the old adage provides the answer: Follow the money. Coren needs a job. One wasn't available in the Church but an offer was to be had elsewhere. It would however require a renouncement of certain moral teachings he once promoted (whether or not he believed in them is anyone's guess). Coren has never been a man of conviction so it should come as no surprise he made the choice he did.

Consider these passages regarding Protestantism from "Why Catholics Are Right":

"What we can say with confidence is that there are some inherent problems in the Protestant approach. If the Bible is the final word of God and the only guide to salvation and life, why are there tens of thousands of competing Protestant denominations and why are so many of them mutually exclusive?"

"To put it bluntly, knowledge of Jesus is available to all people but to know Christ is available only to Christians in communion with the [Catholic] Church."

"Through the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church, the truth of the Bible is guided and guarded through the ages. Interpretation is not left to individuals but to those given the authority and the ability to interpret by Jesus Christ while He was on earth present here among us."

He goes on to make a solid argument in defence of the papacy albeit such isn't difficult. However, what this proves is Coren is well aware the "Church" of England is in fact schismatic and does not have the authority to convey Ordination. He can wear a collar and call himself Reverend but he won't be able to convey the Sacraments nor the miracle of Transubstantiation. Again, he knows this.

Coren also knows of the papal encyclical, Apostolicae Curae, by Pope Leo XIII in 1896 nullifying any assumed ability of the 'Church' of England to convey ordinations. King Henry VIII broke from apostolic succession.

It is not reasonable to think one could believe the argument he makes against Protestantism only to join it in good faith a few years later. He was either lying then or now and if now probably for financial gain...the equivalent of thirty silver pieces.

"Christianity is about salvation and a moral code and belief system that leads to that salvation. The Church exists to save souls, not to make people feel good about themselves. Therefore it's vital to defend the truth and defend the Church that preserves it."  "Why Catholics Are Right"

So Coren has left the truth behind for money. We should pray he repents and if not then may God have mercy on his soul. Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

Image result for judas hang

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Please Michael Coren, Just Go Away

Imagine the uproar if three years after writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx became a capitalist. Would those who felt betrayed be justified in criticizing him?

Three years after writing "Why Catholics Are Right", Michael Coren became a Protestant in favor of sodomy and abortion. What's even more bizarre is his incessant whining about how mean Catholics are now.

Could it be criminal to take money as a Catholic writer who left the Church unannounced? Coren spent a year speaking and writing for Catholics without having told anyone he was no longer Catholic.


false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of whatshould have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud.

Before another frivolous lawsuit threat is launched against a blogger, I am not accusing anyone of anything. However, at the very least, Coren was dishonest and deceived people for financial gain. Call that what you will. An honorable man would return the money received while misrepresenting himself.

Such deception should raise doubt in whatever position he takes on any issue going forward. What if all his research into Islam for his book "Hatred. Islam's War Against Christianity" he has a 'Road To Mecca' moment and converts to Mohammedanism? Given his track record, (Agnostic-Catholic-Evangelical-Catholic-Anglican) it wouldn't be a surprise. The only thing Coren has been consistent about is inconsistency. 

As far back as 1994 there have been criticism's of Coren's integrity. He was called a 'literary prostitute' by another writer apparently more steady in his/her convictions. 

On social media, Coren is playing the victim claiming 'right wing' Catholics are saying mean things about him. I haven't seen any evidence of such and given his record he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Even if some tweets or Facebook comments have been uncharitable, man up Michael. For someone who supposedly receives death threats for criticizing Islam it's absurd to be upset by the 'Church Of Nasty'. Maybe those death threats are as fake as his Catholicism?

What's even more absurd about this sad little man is his career has been based on being an agitator, politically incorrect, even attacking ladies for being overweight. I've always thought of a bully as someone who can dish it out but not take it. Daniel Richler said of Coren, "He loves scandal but hates it when it comes his way." 

I have two of Coren's books: "Why Catholics Are Right" and "Heresy". They have breadth but not depth. The Church hasn't lost a St. Augustine, Aquinas, or Chesterton. What his knowledge proves is an arrogant hypocrisy. It's one thing for some abortion advocate to parrot such contrived rhetoric as "My body. My choice." but quite another from someone who penned: "In fact, no right has any meaning unless it is underpinned by the most natural and essential right and that is, of course, the right to be allowed to be born." ('Heresy', pg 192).  

Coren may take pride in being a contrarian, but he also needs to admit to self-contradiction. In his one and only column for the Progressive-Catholic (a term usually used as an euphamism for dissenting or heretical) publication, Prairie Messenger, he wrote an article called the Seamless Garment a term popularized by the deceased Cardinal Bernardin. In it he officially left the pro-life camp referencing the case of a ten year old impregnated by her father in Paraguay: 

 A terrified little girl victimized by those around her and forced by a government to give birth to the child of her rapist? That is not justice, that is not life, that is not right. God must be weeping.

In 2011, Coren wrote in "Why Catholics Are Right":
"How about abortion, runs one of the most common debating points, in cases of rape and incest? These tragedies provide less than a fraction of 1 percent of the reasons for abortion, and they are mentioned by abortion advocates simple to make pro-lifers appear extreme, claiming that pro-life advocates done't care about rape victims or young girls forced into sex by a father. It's nonsense, of course, but it does help win an argument. We should ask if those who support abortion in these rare cases would oppose it when rape and incest are not the causes of pregnancy. It would in most cases be a rhetorical question. Catholics believe that life is sacred and that while compassion, empathy, and understanding are essential, we cannot punish one crime by committing another. A rapist is a criminal, his child is not. Pro-abortion activists ask this question less because they care about rape and incest bu more because they want to make the pro-life position appear unreasonable."

Coren is claiming 'right wing' Catholics and anti-abortion zealots got him fired from the Prairie Messenger. Maybe the editors compared one of his positions against another and fired him on principle. What would happen to the president of the Liberal Party if he admitted he votes for the Conservatives? Hopefully he wouldn't whine about his dismissal.

Coren's excuse for leaving the Church is the marriage debate. Apparently his position 'evolved' and once he embraced gay marriage a whole slew of other changes occurred. It will not surprise me if he runs for the Liberal Party in a federal or provincial election. His evolution may drift all the way to the NDP but say what you will about Canada's socialists, they are too principled to welcome a hypocrite like him. 

If he's being honest (who knows?) about sexual orientation being the reason he left the Church it is also his most blatant self-contradiction. Consider the following:

“Nobody believes the story of Sodom refers to consensual homosexuality any more and Jesus never mentions the subject."

"The Old Testament refers to the sin of Sodom, where God was angry at the acts of homosexual intercourse that occurred in the city and eventually destroyed it." 

Both comments are from Michael Coren, three years apart. In the first quote he goes further by claiming St Paul was talking about heterosexual men raping boys which contradicts what he had written in "Why Catholics Are Right" regarding the same subject:

"The New Testament is just as specific about homosexuality...The response from some in the gay community is that the translations are not always accurate and that Paul and his contemporaries lived at a time when we did not understand homosexuality or sexuality in general and that the modern Christian world should adapt to a post-sexual revolutionary world. Again, there is a fundamental problem of logic here."

There is also a fundamental problem of consistency with Coren. 

Compare this monologue from the defunct Sun News Network to his more recent article from the National Post regarding the explicit sex-ed curriculum imposed by the Ontario Liberal Party.

For someone who seems to relish his perch atop the intellectual superiority tree, it's amusing he now resorts to calling his critics homophobics when only a few years ago he wrote:

"Yet the word 'homophobia' is thrown around carelessly, often not to describe a bigoted and violent person who hates gay men and women but to silence anybody who has an objection to some aspect of the gay lifestyle."

What's even funnier is the old "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" fallacy. Yes, Michael, Jesus spoke of love, but he spoke of damnation much more. Coren knows that. He also knows Jesus ate with the sinners after they repented. 

"As for Jesus not condemning homosexuality, nor did He condemn bestiality and necrophilia…But you were referring to the Bible. I was showing that Christ did indeed condemn homosexuality, as does the Old Testament, St. Paul, the church fathers and all Christianity until a few liberal Protestants in the last decades of the 20th century who, frankly, are more concerned with political correctness than truth." (Michael Coren, The Toronto Sun, 22 May 2007)

Jimmy Akin addresses this tactic well:

"The number of clichés Coren uses, both in the print interview and in its video counterpart, is remarkable.

In the video, he says that although the Church’s teaching on homosexuality was the main reason he left, “there’s more than that — some teachings on contraception and on life. There seemed to be an obsession with issues that Jesus never mentioned.”

Dude, really?

It’s hard to imagine an educated Christian honestly employing a reductionistic criterion like whether Jesus discussed a subject explicitly.

The Gospels are limited documents that record only a few thousand words of Jesus’ teachings. They can’t possibly comment on every issue of moral significance.

Jesus means us to use other resources, including the other books of the New Testament, to flesh out a moral understanding of issues that the Gospels don’t go into.

Every educated Christian should know this, so whenever anyone makes the “Jesus didn’t mention that” claim in a moral discussion, one immediately suspects that the person is either under-educated or being intellectually dishonest.

I won’t presume to judge how Coren falls with respect to those categories. It could be that he has simply never devoted a moment’s thought to the subject.

As soon as one does, though, it immediately becomes clear that you can’t dismiss the moral significance of an issue — or say it’s just up to the individual’s conscience — merely because Jesus didn’t mention it.

Two Things Jesus Never Mentioned

For example, Jesus never mentioned terrorism.

Yet I have a hard time imagining Coren arguing that it’s a matter of individual conscience whether one can kill or threaten to kill innocent people as a way of bringing psychological pressure on others in order to effect social change.

I presume he has the moral clarity needed to say that’s just wrong.

He might say — as have others — that the Church has an obsession with sexual matters that Jesus never mentioned, but, then, Jesus doesn’t offer us a comprehensive catechesis on sexual morality in the Gospels.

For example, Jesus never mentioned rape.

I certainly hope, though, that Coren would recognize that Jesus wishes us to develop our view of the moral status of rape using other information, including what can be learned from other passages in Scripture and what reason itself can teach us.

Extending the Principle

But if Jesus wishes us to do that regarding one sexual matter he didn’t mention, then we should expect to do so with other such sexual issues.

After all, we know the reason that Jesus didn’t address the issue of homosexuality in the Gospels: It’s because its moral status was not in question in his own circles.

It was not until the Christian community began to spread in Greco-Roman circles, where homosexual activity was tolerated, that the subject would need to be addressed — and so it was: in St. Paul’s epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10)."

Coren has a new book soon to be released entitled, "Coming Out: A Christian’s Change of Heart and Mind over Gay Marriage" so we'll have to endure more whining, conjecture, and self-promotion. After that hopefully he'll focus on this studies at the Anglican seminary, become another obscure pastor in a dying parish and just keep to himself. Or maybe he'll become an atheist championing polygamy while running for the Green Party. Michael Coren is like a box of chocolates, just not as sweet.  

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Rev. Michael Coren?

On Facebook, recently unemployed Michael Coren announced he's going back to university to get his Masters of Divinity degree. 

Pursuit of a Masters Of Divinity degree is no mere hobby. It takes three years of full time study to complete the program. 

So why would anyone still in their earning years take three years off work to get a Masters Of Divinity degree? It doesn't make sense to do it just for farts and giggles, does it? Could it be the reason most people go to unversity?

The three jobs that come up under M.Div. opportunities are ordained ministry, chaplaincy, and counselling. Can you see Michael Coren hanging out on campus or in some community outreach centre giving spiritual advice?

However, getting a gig as a pastor with an open pulpit from which to promote your version of the good news does make sense, and guess who's hiring?

The Diocese of Toronto, Anglican Church of Canada

Of course this is just speculation, but it would make sense of things. Last summer Michael read the tea leaves and anticipated his employer's (Sun News Network) demise. Realizing his career in television was probably over, he did a 180 degree about face on a few contenscious issues in order to become more palatable to a desperately politcally correct institution. 

"You know what's funny, sister? I read somewhere female priests are un-biblical."

Michael wouldn't become the first self-promoting celebrity reverend.


The main problem with this self-preserving move is the Anglican Church Of Canada is a sinking ship.

ACoC mrmbers

However, it's unlikely the CoE in Canada will become financially desolate prior to Michael's need of a pension and medical benefits...assuming that's the plan. 

 Archbishop (Sans Apostolic Succession) Of Cantebury

Hey, with Michael Coren's lightening scruples if he did get into the Church of England clergy, he might rise all the way to the top! That would be nice indeed.

Michael Coren Schism Update

On Twitter, Ex-Catholic Michael Coren says he's been worshipping as a Protestant for a year now. 

Somehow I doubt all the Cathoic parishes and organizations he took money from for his appearances were aware of his schism. I also doubt he'll be issuing any refunds.

Back in November 2013, Michael Coren was contracted to speak on the subject of 'Catholic Education In Ontario's Public Schools". When he arrived at the event he informed the gathering he'd rather do a general Question & Answer session instead. No refund.

He laments being cancelled to appear on EWTN by stating we should all be more concerned about the Baltimore Riots than his defection. Nice try, Mike. Maybe we should be more concerned about Nepal or Nigeria than the riots? Maybe we should be most concerned about the eternal destination of our souls?

It seems word is getting around Michael Coren is no longer Catholic, or he's trying to hide the fact. The empty rows beneath his photo used to contain his speaking schedule. Legatus, Great Lakes Catholic Men's Conference, and the Diocese Of Calgary Priest Days were there.

Michael says he has a new book coming out. Possible titles:

"Why Anglicans Are Right"
"Why Catholics Are Wrong"
"Why Taliban Catholics Are Wrong. Forward by Rev.Rosica"

Michael is portraying himself as a martyr now apparaently the victim of slander and hate from 'right wing Catholics'. He has a poor memory because it wasn't long ago he wrote in Catholic World Report:

"The Catholic Church looks neither right nor left but up. In other words, the Church is not a vehicle for conservatism or liberalism, capitalism or socialism, but a vehicle for Catholicism. Anyone who thinks and believes otherwise has surely misunderstood the teaching and purpose of the institution left us by Christ Jesus."

It's also worth noting Christ Jesus did not leave us the Church Of England; King Henry VIII did that.

Based on this photo it seems Michael was wrong about female ordination too:

"It’s a pride thing, really. Not the Papacy, not the Magisterium, not Scripture, but I, me, we, will dictate what is to be believed and rejected. A quintessential example of this is female ordination. It’s un-Biblical, it perverts the meaning of a Sacrament and the place of the priest during Mass, and it fundamentally misunderstands God’s creation."

Had the Anglican Diocese Of Toronto not put this picture on its Facebook page, I wonder if/when Michael Coren would have announced publicly he's now a Schismatic Catholic?

Monday, April 27, 2015

Dissecting Michael Coren: The Opportunistic Christian

On Sunday, April 19, 2015, Michael Coren left the one and only Church created by Jesus Christ and entered the Protestant denomination created by King Henry VIII fifteen hundred years later.

King Henry VIII wanted a male heir to his throne and blamed his streak of daughters on his wife. Since divorce/remarriage has never been allowed by Jesus Christ nor His Church the monarch of England went on his own way.

Michael Coren doesn't seem to be seeking a divorce so what caused his apostasy? It's been a very sudden about face for him. On Saturday, June 28, 2014, the Toronto Sun published his "I Was Wrong" column. Prior to it he was considered a doctrinally orthodox Catholic, a 'conservative' if you so choose, in line with the 'hate the sin not the sinner' philosophy, not the 'turn a blind eye' prominenet in many Moderrn parishes and dioceses today.

Let's take a look at his argument for his 'evolution' against doctrine.

Michael says he changed his position on homosexuality/gay marriage due to ...
"largely and ironically because of the angry and hateful responses of some people to my defence of persecuted gay men"

Let's examine that approach, shall we?

What Michael is saying is that extemism in a position nullifies it. Think about that. If true then...
- Westboro Baptist Church disproves Christianity 
- Corporate thieves disprove capitalism
- Watergate disproves democracy
- Holligans disprove English football
- Maple Leaf fans disprove hockey

What I always admired about Michael Coren is his sharp reasoning skills. He wouldn't agree to any of the above so it begs the question how did he come up with such a faulty premise?

Here's another oddity from his column:

"I have evolved my position on this issue not in spite of but precisely because of my Catholicism. My belief in God, Christ, the Eucharist, and Christian moral teaching are stronger than ever."

Image result for why catholics are right

There are a few problems with this statement. The first is doctrine does not evole so why should any Catholic's opinion?

Obvioulsy his belief in the Eucharist changed ten months later since he has gone from receiving the actual Body Of Christ to a symbol of it. 

His belief in Catholic moral teaching changed too since sodomy is still a sin that cries out to Heaven. Michael Coren is far too intelligent to have been duped by the mainstream media's interpretation of Pope Francis' "Who am I to judge?' quote. He understands the context so can't use that utterance as an excuse for heresy. 

Then he brings his kids into it:

"My kids? They’re not political, they respect and love me and they would never waste their time trying to change my mind. That they’re accepting of gay people and gay marriage is axiomatic – they’re aged 16, 20, 24, and 25 -- and, whether you like it or not, that generation in the west simply does not comprehend opposition on these issues."

I wonder why Coren brings his kids into his sudden break from Catholic doctrine. It would be understandable for a parent upon learning one of his children suffers from same-sex attraction to question his faith.

The problem with his self-descibed Cathoic kids is that they accept gay 'marriage'. Sorry Michael, that dog doesn't hunt. Catholic and accepting gay marriage are mutually exclusive. You know that. 

Continuing on with his column...

"I have evolved on this single subject because I can no longer hide behind comfortable banalities, have realized that love triumphs judgment, and know that the conversation between Christians and gays has to transform -- just as, to a large extent, the conversation between conservatives and gays has."

First, was there a Freudian Slip with the 'banalities' choice?

Second, love does not triump judgement, at least in a theological discussion. Such nonsense might make a NDP Youth gathering break out into song and dance, but it's not solid reasoning. Check the Bible and Church teaching - we are judged. One mortal sin is enough to cast us off to eternal damnation.

Third, the conversation between 'conservatives' and gays has not transformed or changed. It's just more reasonable than contrary opinions on the other side. Indeed, we hate the sin, love the sinner, Michael. 

If Michael wants to make his newly found alliance with sodomites and other unnatural perversions a political position than it won't be a surprise to see him in next year's gay pride festivities:

Does that mean his fiscal political positions have 'evolved' too? Is generational debt now righteous? Has the baby been thrown out with the gay borrowed bath water?

So if extemism is a valid plank in an 'evolved' platform does that mean Michael Coren necessarily endorses Ben Levin's sexual grooming/education curriculum legistlated without a mandate by "Wild Woman" Kathleen Wynne who has finally found her sexual energy? Perhaps he realized he could not support it as a Catholic so found a receptive audience in the morally challenged church of England?  

If you think this is confusing read Coren's Wikipedia page. 

"I am not prepared to throw around ugly terms like “sin” and “disordered” as if they were clumsy cudgels"

Well, gosh, Michael, that's might white of you. Too bad Jesus Christ felt differently. He spoke of sin quite often. Indeed he dined with sinners after absolving them of their sins and telling them to sin no more. As pope of your new found belief system how will you handle your flock's sins assuming they have any?

Since Michael has thrown away the Church it's safe to assume he's tossed the Catechim too. It's quite clear how to understand homosexuality. Pro Tip: just like any other afflication (i.e. alcoholism, etc.). I won't be throwing rocks. 

"I am sick and tired of defining the word of God"

Bingo. Michael Coren's entire argument is exposed with this statement. As a Catholic scholar he should know it is in fact not his nor anyone else's preogative to define the Word Of God. That privlidge was given to Peter and the Church his successors rule over. The 33,000 denominations of His Church prove once you break away into personal interpreation then by definition it dissolves. 

Michael, I suggest you got yourself into this mess by succumbing to the Devil's temptations. He seducced you into thinking your intellect is higher than the Church's. Your opinion great that the pope's. It's probably what happened to King Henry VIII, Luther, etc.

Finally, "If we live, we grow. The alternative is, of course, death." Michael, any Scriptural or Traditional proof for that statement? Of course not. You can not make up doctrine. 

Reading Michael's Wiki page it seems like he has profitted from his Christian allegiances. There is some suggestion that something very personal caused his 'evolution' in gay marriage which then precipitated his departure from the Church. Some people expect him to become an Anglican minister in the near future. Whatever the cause we should pray for him since every soul Lucifer wins is a loss for us. 

Wednesday, April 8, 2015



Is an American Catholic renaissance possible in our lifetime?

Nine years ago I started writing as the “American Papist” because I was, and remain, proud to be both Catholic and an American.

We as Christians understand that hope is a necessity of being Catholic because there is no better foundation for hope than the promises of Christ.

Newly ordained priests. Copyright: The Catholic Spirit, newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis

But what signs of hope can be gleaned for the future of the Catholic Church in America?

This year, interspersed with my other writing, I’m launching a series of essays around the theme “Signs of Hope” to share and explain what gives me inspiration and optimism about the future of the Catholic Church in America.

And I hope you actively take part in sharing with me and your fellow readers what gives you hope.

My first sign of hope is the Under-35 Priest.

When I get into debates about the future of the Catholic Church in America with Catholics who disagree with me about the importance of orthodoxy, one of the realities I keep in mind is that, because of the type of young men studying in seminaries and serving in parishes already, the papist revolution has already begun.

We tend to think about the shortage of priests in numeric terms. And we take hope when the latest reports show that there are more men studying for the priesthood now than a decade or two ago. But what fascinates me more is the quality of the men studying for the priesthood now and of priests in general under the age of 35. One of the most striking features of these young priests is their orthodoxy, especially when you contrast their theological views with the set of priests who graduated seminary in the 1970′s. Just as we talk about the shared characteristics among generations of Americans (i.e. the baby boomers, the “greatest generation” etc.) we can talk about shared characteristics among generations of priests. So many of the men who became priests in the 1970′s sought to change the world through the Church. Men under 35 become priests to serve the church.

Think about what a young man choosing the priesthood knows he is getting himself into: overwork, due to the shortage of priests, and ridicule from most anyone outside the church. It takes dedication and determination to choose such a path.

Here’s a dynamic I’ve seen in parish after parish. The liberal monsignor is the pastor. He is in his 60s. His homilies and pastoral priorities are cryogenically frozen and preserved from the 1970′s. He never preaches against sin. The assistant priest (i.e. parochial vicar) is probably in his 30s, maybe late 20s. This under-35 priest loves St. John Paul II. He loves Latin in the Mass. He may have fallen away from the church in college, but he had a powerful conversion. He talks about sin and the beauty of confession in his homilies. He quietly tries to introduce Eucharistic adoration.

Does this sound like a parish you know of, maybe even your own?

It’s happening all across America. And it’s going to change the face of the church in this country.

Over the past decade I have met hundreds of seminarians and young priests. I can only recall a handful who didn’t fit the pattern I’m trying to describe.

And, of course, I have also met and studied under scores of priests over the age of 35 who are every bit as loyal and as dedicated to the Church as the young men I’m describing. We owe these priests an incalculable debt for their perseverance and for passing on the faith in its fullness.

We must also consider how many young priests in the 1970′s began their priesthood with stars in their eyes and orthodoxy in their hearts but changed their views along the way. Who knows how the rough and tumble of vocation lived out in the real world can alter priestly attitudes and sensibilities. So the way priests view themselves and the Church obviously can change over the course of a lifetime. But at the same time, I wager that today in 2015 we’ve already reached a critical mass of young, orthodox priests who will have a significant impact on the Church in America in ourlifetime, even if trends change eventually and the next crop of priests are less orthodox than the current set.

The saying goes that the church “outlives all heresies”, and the makeup of young priests in America is testament to the truth of that adage. I once heard a story about several seminarians complaining among themselves that their professor (an older priest) was misrepresenting scripture and trying to turn parts of the New Testament into proto-feminist propaganda. Most of the secondary sources they were assigned were published in the 1970′s. It was the beginning of the semester and the course was required. They were trying to figure out what could be done — they didn’t want to miss this opportunity to understand the scriptures more fully. Finally one of them suggested that the solution was that some day they would be teaching the course and when that happened they would teach it differently. The answer was not to overthrow the heterodoxy, the solution was to outlive it. I have never forgotten that perspective.

I think it’s impossible not to trace this quiet revolution to St. John Paul II, and in particular the 1993 World Youth Day in Denver. So many young priests trace part of their vocational discernment either to St. John Paul II or a World Youth Day (Denver in particular). This positive trend also appears to be more pronounced in America than in other parts of the world.

I think it’s also particularly revealing to note which bishops and religious orders are attracting the most vocations — orthodox ones. That’s why the Dominicans on the east coast are flourishing while the Paulist Fathers are having a harder time. Or why Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz can have over two dozen men in formation in a diocese that numbers less than 100,000 and another diocese did not ordain a single priest in ten years because the bishop refused to ordain another man until he could also ordain women.

One simple way of looking at all this is to say: if you are willing to put up with all of the challenging and difficult things that come with being a Catholic priest, you might as well be really Catholic.

The under-35 priest is not running the show right now. He is waiting in the wings, serving the church he loves. The vast majority of these young priests will not be old enough to be appointed bishops for another decade or two. But when they do, one of the pillars of an American Catholic renaissance will be in place.


What do you think? In your experience, are younger priests more likely to be orthodox than older priests? What are the dynamics in your parish and your diocese? What gives you hope for the future of the Catholic Church in America?