Saturday, 21 July 2018

Why Knights Fought Snails in Mediæval Art

My interest in mediæval history, combined with my wanderings through YouTube, can lead me into some interesting places! Tonight, they led me to this fascinating video, 'Why Knights Fought Snails in Mediæval Art', from a channel called Vox.

And then to this equally fascinating, albeit much drier, scholarly paper, The Snail in Gothic Marginal Warfare, on which the video was based. It's on JSTOR, which you can register with for free, and then read up to six papers per month gratis. 


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 21 JULY – SAINT PRAXEDES (Virgin): Praxedes was a daughter of the Roman senator Cornelius Pudens and his wife Servilia. She had two brothers, Novatus and Timotheus, and ...


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 21 JULY – SAINT LAURENCE OF BRINDISI (Confessor): Laurence (baptised Cesare after Julius Caesar) was born at Brindisi in southern Italy in 1559 to Christian parents, Guglielmo de Rossi an...

21 July, A Chesterton Calendar

JULY 21st

Many clever men like you have trusted to civilization. Many clever Babylonians, many clever Egyptians, many clever men at the end of Rome. Can you tell me, in a world that is flagrant with the failures of civilization, what there is particularly immortal about yours?

‘The Napoleon of Notting Hill.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44631-44634). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

22 June, The Roman Martyrology

ante diem xi Kalendas Augustas

July 22nd anno Domini 2018 The 9th Day of the Moon were born into the better life: 

At Marseilles, holy Mary Magdalen, out of whom the Lord cast seven devils, and who was made worthy to be the first to see this same Saviour after that He was risen from the dead. 
At Philippi, holy Syntyche, of whom mention is made by the blessed Apostle Paul. 
At Ancyra, in Galatia, the holy martyr Plato, [in the year 304.] 
Under the Vicar Agrippinus he was cut with stripes, pronged with iron nails, and tormented with other dire sorts of torments, then at last beheaded, and so gave up his soul unconquered to God. The miracles wrought by him in the succouring of prisoners are attested by the acts of the Second Council of Nice. 
In Cyprus, the holy Praetor Theophilus. The Arabs strove to make him deny Christ, but as neither bribery nor threats could bend him, they slew him with the sword, [in the year 790.] 
At Antioch, holy Cyril, Bishop [of that see,] famous for his teaching and holiness, [in the year 300.] 
In Auvergne, the holy Abbot Menelaus, [about the year 700, Restorer of the Abbey of Menat, in the Diocese of Clermont.] 
In the Monastery of the Blandijnberg, in Gent in Flanders, holy Wandregisilus [St. Wandrille], Abbot of Fontenelle, [in the year 667, the founder of several monasteries.] 
At Lisbon, the holy Confessor Laurence of Brindisi, Minister-General of the Order of Capuchin Friars Minors of St. Francis. He was famous for his preaching of the word of God, and for his hard work for God's glory, and the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII 
enrolled his name among those of the saints. 
At Bethshan, in Palestine, the holy Earl Joseph, [about the year 366.] 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Friday, 20 July 2018

In Austria, Official Websites under Cdl. Schönborn Undermining Humanae Vitae

Hardly a day goes by that there isn't more evidence that many of our Bishops have entirely lost the Divine and Catholic Faith and are in formal heresy, since as theologically trained clerics, I can not believe that they are unaware that many of the opinions they hold, and teach, are condemned heresies.

From One Peter Five

The official website of the Austrian bishops under Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s watch, as well as his own diocesan website, has published a series of articles in light of the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. These articles present a major undermining of essential Church teachings as they were laid out in Humanae Vitae, even putting into doubt the abiding unlawfulness of contraception.
Cardinal Schönborn is the “media bishop” of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference and, as such, officially the editor of Kathpress, the news website of the bishops’ conference. He is also responsible, as the archbishop of Vienna, for what his diocesan website publishes.
Kathpress published, on 12 July, a dossier with six articles, most of which undermine an essential part of Humanae Vitae‘s teaching – namely, that artificial contraception is immoral. (None of the articles presents a strong defense of this encyclical’s teaching.)
One of these articles, entitled “Moral Theologian: to Further Develop Humanae Vitae,” is a review of a new book on Humanae Vitae and Amoris Laetitia written by the progressive moral theologian Professor Martin Lintner (Brixen, Italy). Lintner proposes to let go of Pope Paul VI’s proposal to permit only Natural Family Planning as the acceptable method to engage in marital relations while intending not to have children. John Paul II’s attempt to forbid artificial contraception, without exception, was, says Lintner, “not convincing finally.” Lintner now insists that the Church “has to take into account the decisions of conscience on the part of the faithful, and to include their reflections as a possible source of moral insight.” In his eyes, it is legitimate to wonder whether each marital act really has to be open to the welcoming of children. Marriage as such would still, however, have to be open to life in general. If this interpretation were correct, then, according to Lintner, not every marital act that avoids conception would immediately be the same as a violation of its dignity as an expression of love.
With regard to Pope Paul VI’s concern about a coming and pervasive “contraceptive mentality” in the near future – which would also show an increase of abortions – Lintner flatly denies it and says that this claim cannot be proven empirically. He asks whether certain arguments in favor of Natural Family Planning “are sufficient in order to interdict, categorically, the use of artificial contraception.”
This troubling article was also published by Cardinal Schönborn’s own diocesan website, but notably without any reference to Kathpress as its source.
Another Kathpress article, also published by the Diocese of Vienna, is an interview with Martina Kronthaler, general secretary of  “Aktion Leben” (“Action Life”), an Austrian non-Catholic counseling organization for pregnant women. For her, it is not obvious which method is to be applied in order to “avoid an unwanted pregnancy” (in the words of Kathpress). Natural Family Planning, as it is recommended by Humanae Vitae, is in her eyes not the right method for every woman. “He who wishes to avoid abortions, has to be informed about all different methods of regulation of conception and of contraception,” she claims. When wondering what remains of Humanae Vitae, Kronthaler explicitly refers to Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia (82): “when morally assessing the methods, the dignity of the person has to be respected.”
In a third, quite heterodox article published by Kathpress, Professor Eberhard Schockenhoff (Freiburg, Germany) is interviewed. He is a moral theologian like Professor Lintner, and both are at the forefront of another moral revolution within the Church. Schockenhoff claims that at least since the pontificate of John Paul II, there is to be found a significant restraint of the Church’s Magisterium with regard to the methods of family planning. Benedict XVI and certainly Francis have been much more reticent than their predecessors. “I think one has realized it to be a wrong path” to insist upon Natural Family Planning as the only acceptable method of avoiding conception while still engaging in marital relations.
Schockenhoff also claims that, today, there is much less emphasis placed on the infallibility of magisterial instructions. Francis, for example, has refrained from using “normative precision” as it can be found in Humanae Vitae, and he has limited himself to stressing human dignity with regard to “the regulation of conception” (“Empfängsregulierung”). Moreover, Francis does not make any condemnations, according to this moral theologian. Today, Church leaders are more interested in stressing themes such as conjugal loyalty, respect, and thoughtfulness. This is, in Schockenhoff’s eyes, the “real sense” of Humanae Vitae, which is still being upheld by the hierarchy. “A Pope cannot simply correct his predecessor and say that he was in error, but he simply tries not to demand it [certain moral conduct] with the same loudness and sense of obligation,” says Schockenhoff.
Another article published only on the website of the Archdiocese of Vienna describes the history of Humanae Vitae and its negative criticism, offered independently by several bishops’ conferences, such as the Austrian Bishops’ Conference, which, in 1968, issued the “Mariatroster Erklärung” (Declaration of Mariatrost). These declarations proposed to give more freedom to the individual conscience when it comes to choosing methods of birth control. The Mariatrost document also put into question the infallibility of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical.
It is noteworthy to see that Cardinal Schönborn himself, in 2008 – then under Pope Benedict’s pontificate – made a strong public criticism of that rejection of Humanae Vitae‘s essential teaching, claiming that it led to a weakening of the engagement for life on the part of the Church. The Austrian cardinal and papal adviser then fittingly spoke of Europe’s threefold “no” to its future: rejection of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the legalization of abortion, and finally the promotion of same-sex partnerships. One should have never said “no” to Humanae Vitae, continued the cardinal.
As can be seen from this recent undermining of Humanae Vitae as published on Austrian ecclesial websites under Schönborn’s own watch, the archbishop now seems to have forgotten his own earlier words, or he has now changed his position. This development is even more regrettable inasmuch as Europe is demographically dying, as Gotti Ettore Tedeschi, the former head of the Vatican bank, pointed out at the 21 May Conference of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family (Jahlf) in Rome.
OnePeterFive reached out to the president of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family, Professor Josef Seifert, who is an Austrian Catholic philosopher, asking him for a comment on the recent articles on Humanae Vitae as here presented. In his response, he speaks about the “shocking disloyalty of the Austrian bishops toward Humanae Vitae” and adds that it is “more than sad to see how the Austrian Bishops’ Conference – and also Cardinal Schönborn – react to the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.” Seifert explains that “Schönborn, back in 2008, finally after many decades of papal admonishments, declared that the Declaration of Mariatrost, with its attenuated and ambiguous praise of Humanae Vitae which truly was a rejection of it, was a mistake.”
Commenting on the recent set of articles as published by kathpress, Seifert says:
Several articles by moral theologians and others on episcopal websites do nothing but attack Humanae Vitae, in spite of hypocritical assurances that it was a prophetical document, etc. They not only put into question the main truth as proclaimed in Humanae Vitae that each act of contraception is in itself evil, but they also try to support their error with even more generally grave and nearly absurd errors. One of them is being presented by the moral theologian Professor Lintner, who claims that the moral law has to be subject to developments – that is to say, when a majority of the people does not follow it anymore and does not act anymore according to Humanae Vitae.
Seifert continues, asking, “Will adultery become good because so many people break their marriages? Is abortion now becoming good or a less grave sin? Is it not anymore a crime that cries to heaven because millions commit it?”
“Is the law to love God above all not any more valid because a large part of the people break it?”
“Nothing could be more absurd than such historical-ethical relativism. And yet we find this absurd error even on episcopal websites on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.”
For Professor Seifert:
It is to be hoped that the Austrian bishops finally understand the truth of the words spoken by Cardinal Schönborn in 2008 and then unanimously rescind the wrong Declaration of Mariatrost and speak up clearly for the truth of the teachings of Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio.
Reiterating the Church’s moral teaching, he explains that “contraception is for many reasons intrinsically evil,” adding that this is the case “not only because the pill has two effects that cause an early abortion and thus is, in a high percentage in its application, murder,” but also “because contraception separates the procreative from the unitive meaning of the marital act.”
Professor Seifert expresses his indignation over these new articles on Humanae Vitae, saying: “What a shame it is for the Church in Austria to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae with the help of a swarm of its enemies on episcopal websites!” In order to counter these initiatives, the philosopher, a student of Dietrich von Hildebrand, now proposes that the Austrian bishops, as a sort of reparation,  publish on their websites articles on Humanae Vitae, as well as invite speakers to a conference on Humanae Vitae, all of whom would “defend beautifully this encyclical, and who are now active in pastoral care which explains its fuller teaching to married couples and to betrothed couples in an appealing way.” As participants of such a positive initiative, Seifert recommends Professor Helmut Prader (Heiligenkreuz), Bishop Andreas Laun (the retired auxiliary bishop of Salzburg), and Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Astana, Kazakhstan).
We may add that, in light of these trenchant words, as well as his own expertise, Professor Seifert himself should also be invited as a speaker at such a conference.

The Cult of Change and Christian Changelessness

Dr Russell Kik, in his The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, quotes Orestes Brownson in The American Republic (1866),
Our great danger lies in the radical tendency which has become so wide, deep, and active in the American people.
Dr Kirk then goes on,
Ceasing to regard anything as sacred or venerable, spurning what is old, injuring what is fixed, setting adrift all religious, domestic, and social institutions, we borrow nothing from the past and ignore the data of experience. We even try to deny that language has exact meaning. The majority of the American people may not approve this radical tendency, but they are silent before the ambitious enthusiasts and competing politicians. We shall not escape from this deluge of change and perilous experiment until we recognize the principle of authority: God's authority.
Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (Kindle Locations 4235-4240). David Rehak. Kindle Edition. 

Dr , writing over 150 years later, and after this 'radical tendency', this American disease, has long since spread throughout the world, ponders the difference between 'change' or 'progress' as seen by the world, and as viewed sub specie aeternitatis, with eyes informed by the Faith. This is a profound essay!

Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, 12:2,
And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.
From One Peter Five

The modern age glamorizes constant change. It romanticizes variety, development, progress, newness. It exalts evolution as a paradigm of knowledge and of all reality. Those who hold tightly to perennial wisdom and permanent truths, traditional morals, inherited culture, artistic monuments, time-honored rites and customs, are criticized as backward, stunted, regressive, old-fashioned, stuck in their ways. They are not “going with the flow” and “moving with the times.” They are “on the wrong side of history.”
If, however, we look at the history of modern philosophy, modern science, and modern religion, we will see where the cult of change has led: to the very rejection of the principle of non-contradiction, according to which a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time; in the same respect the rejection of the unchanging essences of creatures, which are rooted in the eternal Logos of God; the rejection of purpose, so that, in spite of lip service to progress, nothing really has a direction toward fulfillment and therefore nothing can have meaning or significance; the rejection of the creaturely and therefore dependent and receptive status of the human being; and the rejection of definitive divine revelation addressed, through Christ, to human nature and to every individual man, for his salvation.
In all these ways, the movement of modernity has ended in a deep chasm, a pit from which it cannot extract itself: a despairing, meaningless rat race for power, possessions, and pleasures, until people die with the empty comfort of painkillers. Modernity is like a cosmic reductio ad absurdum, a demonstration of what happens when God is forgotten – God, who gives meaning to all things, including suffering and death. We are seeing, first hand, what happens when people try to live without reference to an eternal horizon, a truth not of our own making, a goodness we were made to love and a beauty we were made to seek.
It is not surprising that “the world” – the world of separation from God, about which our Lord and His apostles speak in such stark terms as if it were the very opposite of God – should think and behave in this manner. The world follows the prince of this world, who uttered the non serviam that first introduced egoism, discord, ugliness, hatred, and anarchy into the orderly universe God had made. But it is surprising, a scandal in the fullest sense of the word, when the Church’s own rulers – men sacramentally entrusted with the office of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying the rational sheep of Christ – begin to think and behave in this way, imperceptibly slinking into Lucifer’s non serviam.
The descent into the demonic is taking place today in the non serviam of those who reject the unequivocal teaching of our Lord in the Gospels on the indissolubility of marriage and the necessity of not throwing the pearl of the Eucharist before the swine of the unrepentant. It is taking place in the non serviam of those who dare to invite non-Catholics to the sacrificial banquet that represents the very unity of the Mystical Body. It is taking place in the non serviam of those who would abolish clerical celibacy and extend clerical ministries to women. It is taking place in the non serviam of those who treat the liturgy as their own possession, to change and modify at whim, rather than treasuring it as the holy inheritance of the saints, freely passed down to us for the sanctifying of our souls.
Then again, we know that the devil never sleeps. Never being at rest in God, he restlessly seeks to induce restlessness in each of us, pulling us away from the immutable God who is our fortress, our stronghold, our rock of refuge, our savior, our protector, our invincible strength. The battle of the spiritual life takes place not “out there” in the world, but right here in my heart, in your heart. Will we lose our peace as the world goes up in flames? Will we drift from the only harbor in which safety lies, lured out to the open sea where we are bound to lose? Will we become so preoccupied with the fight that we forget the immortal victory already achieved and shared with us in the heavenly banquet of Holy Communion? Will we fall for the most subtle error of all – namely, that if the Church appears to be faltering and failing, then it must be that Christ is no longer able to save us – as if our finite and fallible gaze at the world can truly measure what is taking place in the vast invisible realm of angels and souls?
“The mystery of lawlessness is already at work,” writes St. Paul to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:7), to which St. John adds: “the dragon was angry against the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17). The dragon of the non serviam makes war against her who said: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to Thy Word” – Thy immortal, immutable, irrefutable, invincible Word.
The Christian Faith sees change in a fundamentally different way from how modernity sees it. For the believer, the primary category is not change, but changelessness. For us, progress is measured not by access to running water, electricity, or wireless internet, but by the “three stages of the spiritual life”: purgative, illuminative, unitive. The only newness that counts is the newness of Christ, the new Adam, into whom we have been baptized, and unto whose “full stature” we are called to grow up by continual conversion (cf. Eph. 4:13). Change is good only when it serves the end of changing our vices into virtues, our alienation from God into friendship with Him. Any other change is incidental at best and distracting or destructive at worst.
The Christian faith, which is the continuation and completion of the Hebrew faith, is premised on three unchanging realities: the one, simple, ever blessed God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ, an ontological covenant that can never be broken; the apostolic deposit of the faith given by the same Christ to His apostles, and from them to their successors until the end of time. The deposit of faith never changes and never can change.
St. Vincent of Lerins, in his great Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, written in the 430s, introduces two contrasting terms and explains their precise difference. The first word, profectus,refers to an advancement in our formulation of what we believe, an articulation of something already known to be true but not yet expressed with as much fullness as the human mind under the guidance of faith and the prompting of the Holy Ghost is capable of. The other word, permutatio, means a mutation, a distortion or deviation, from the original. St. Vincent insisted that the one true faith of the Church admits of profectus but never of permutatio. One may plumb deeper into the nexus mysteriorum, the tight network of mysteries, and see the glint of new facets of beauty, but one may never pull a rabbit out of a hat – or, one might say, a dove out of a mitre.
Michael Pakaluk, a professor of ethics at the Catholic University of America, expresses this point well:
Theories of development are meant to establish identity of doctrine, not difference. … Newman, when he put his argument into deductive form in Latin, for theologians in Rome after his conversion, stated that, objectively, doctrine is given all at once in the revelation of Christ and never changes. Our subjective reception of the doctrine may change, but it must never do so in a way that makes the objective content appear to have changed. … Of course no contradiction is properly described as a development, any more than an axe to the root of a tree can “develop” the tree. [i]
What St. Vincent of Lerins states about doctrine also includes the principles of Christian morality, above all the reality of intrinsically evil actions – actions that can never be good, no matter what intention lies behind them, no matter what the circumstances may be. The Church has made her mind absolutely clear on these actions, faithfully following her divine Master. There has been profectus, as we see in the teaching of modern popes like Pius XII and John Paul II, but no permutatio, by which the commandments are turned upside-down and inside-out. The rule of charity, of good and God-pleasing action, like the rule of faith that governs our assent to the truth, is unchanging and unchangeable.
The crisis in the Church, as the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor so clearly laid out, is a crisis of faith and charity – a crisis of adherence to revealed truth and of the willingness to live the truth, suffer for it, die for it. This, in one form or another, is always the struggle between Satan’s non serviam and Christ’s “not my will but Thine be done,” between the self-destructive freedom of sin and the self-perfecting freedom of obedience, between the boring titillation of perpetual change and the fulfilling romance of divine love. The struggle has entered a new phase with a new intensity, but Christ our Lord is the same, His truth abides, and His victory is assured.

[i] “Four Ideas About Development,” First Things, November 17, 2017, accessed at

LGBTQ Totalitarianism in Boston: The Destruction of the St. Patrick's Day Parade

The destruction of our Græco-Roman Catholic Civilisation and Culture continues apace. Sadly, it is no longer threatened by its historic enemies alone. The attacks now come from 'Catholic' sources as well, aided and abetted by the many of our Hierarchs who are false shepherds, wolves in sheeps' clothing.

From The American Thinker

In 1995, a remarkable 9-0 ruling was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  A Catholic veterans' group, organizers of the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in South Boston, were vindicated in their refusal to allow a homosexual activist group to march in their parade.  The Court confirmed that the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was protected by the First Amendment and could reject a group if it "impart[ed] a message that the [parade] organizers do not wish to convey."
Twenty-three years later, orthodox Boston Irish Catholics will no longer have the prominent public voice on St. Patrick's Day.  They've been elbowed out by secular celebrants of disordered sexuality.
South Boston has fallen.  LGBTQ radicals have just seized complete control of the St. Patrick's Day Parade, with the director of a front group, OUTVETS, put in charge of the event.
The shocking evolution of the parade from a celebration of Irish Catholic heritage to an overtly LGBTQ event should be a warning to those who advocate "inclusion" within their institutions.  The infusion of LGBTQ sexuality will inevitably upend tried and true traditions and moral standards.  We see this happening most clearly in our schools and churches.
Profile of an LGBTQ Takeover
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts and the pro-family groupMassResistance have chronicled the sad demise of the St. Patrick's Day event (while attempting to save it).  The League's executive director, C.J. Doyle, explained in a recent press release:
During the 2013 Boston mayoral election ... then State Representative [Marty] Walsh promised homosexual activists that, if elected, he would compel the Veterans Council to reverse their position [not allowing "gay" groups in the parade].  Shortly after taking office in January, 2014, Walsh began a campaign of intimidation which included threats to boycott the parade, threats to withhold city permitsclaims that the Boston Police could not prevent violent disruptions of the parade, and personally shouting, in a public forum, threats and obscenities at [the] parade marshal[.]
In 2014, Mayor Walsh – a former union boss – first tried to force inclusion of the "LGBTQ rights" group MassEquality.  The Catholic Action League and MassResistance helped hold off this first assault.  The would-be invaders regrouped.
The mayor secured a foothold in 2015. That year, Boston Pride marchers were allowed in the parade.  Its president said, "We are wicked proud of ... finally breaking that wall.  It's a huge change, especially 20 years later, to have that understanding and make sure people feel welcome in the parade."  The Boston Pride organization had no discernable connection to the parade's Boston Irish Catholic theme, but only to LGBTQ activism.  A wall certainly was broken.
Another LGBTQ group, OUTVETS, marched in the 2015 parade, wearing rainbow patches and carrying a rainbow banner reading, Pride – Honor – Sacrifice.  MassResistance reported, "By all accounts, OUTVETS is a contrived group of Boston city employees created in late 2014 by Mayor Marty Walsh specifically to be a homosexual 'veterans' presence in the St. Patrick's Day Parade."
St. Patrick was not pleased.  Nor were the local Knights of Columbus, who refused to march in 2015 because the event had "become politicized and divisive."
The two LGBT groups marched again in 2016.  The Catholic Action League and MassResistance amassed over 6,000 signatures demanding that "organizers remove the name of 'St. Patrick' from the parade because the inclusion of anti-Catholic homosexual groups made it impossible to honor a Catholic saint."
The rainbow symbols proclaiming LGBTQ identifications of the two groups clearly violated the organizers' rules.  But their objection was weakly voiced.
The final capitulation came in 2017. Mayor Walsh was determined to wipe out any glimmer of resistance to sexual radicals' participation. The Veterans Council's objection to LGBT symbols had to be overcome. The mayor continued to strong-arm the parade organization. Powerful politicians and corporate sponsors threatened to withhold support.

Worse, Antifa-style riots were being planned to disrupt the 2017 parade if LGBTQ groups were not given full participation.  No mainstream outlet reported on those threats of violence.
A former Veterans Council commander told MassResistance that the Boston police commissioner's office had warned parade organizer Tim Duross:
[B]usloads of LGBT activists from other states were planning to come to Boston to protest the parade and disrupt it.  Furthermore, there would likely be violence and even possible deaths.  The police strongly implied that they could not contain such violence – and that Duross would be responsible if it happened – unless he allowed the homosexual group to march.
This was confirmed by the 2017 council commander.  And parade organizer Duross said:
[T]he threats had been discovered through various social media, and that he had met with the Police Commissioner who said that the threats were real, that busses of activists would be coming to converge on the parade – similar to other recent organized riots around the country – and this needed to be taken seriously.  There seemed to be the implication that the police would not be able to contain it.  "If anybody got hurt because of this, I wouldn't be able to live with myself," Duross told MassResistance.  He said that he felt he had no choice but to let the homosexual group in.  Duross said that he had also been personally targeted with harassment and threats.
Sadly, the Boston Archdiocese never stepped in to corral the errant nominal Catholics (such as the Boston mayor).  So leftist strong-arm tactics and threats of violence won once again. 
C.J. Doyle (Catholic Action League) laments:
Saint Patrick's Day was instituted to commemorate the Apostle who brought the Catholic Faith to Ireland.  It is impossible to honor Saint Patrick while showcasing those who not only repudiate the moral code of Saint Patrick's religion, but who castigate that code as bigotry, prejudice, hatred and homophobia.
Everything which OUTVETS represents is radically discordant with the life and mission of Saint Patrick, who rescued an entire nation from paganism and its libertine moral practices.  OUTVETS cares nothing for the traditional culture and heritage of once Catholic Ireland.  For them, this event is an opportunity to impose their anti-Catholic ideology on an historically Catholic celebration.
This also speaks to the totalitarian instincts of homosexual activists, who must, evidently, not only defeat the victims of their aggression, but then dispossess them of their organizations, and prevent them from ever opposing them again.
It's not enough that LGBTQ groups overrun Boston during the month of June with their "pride" parades and orgies.  Now they control another big parade in March.
The demise of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade is just one example of how allowing LGBTQ individuals to openly serve in the U.S. military has opened doors for their activist interference in other social realms.  If LGBTQ participation in the military is recognized as legitimate, who can refuse to recognize their inclusion in other settings?
LGBTQ groups parading their identities is not just about advocating sexual freedom or inclusion.  It's about politics (wielding power).  It's about making everyone else bow to LGBTQ feelings and demands.  And it's about crushing orthodox religion.
Why are conservatives institutions (hello, Catholic Church) not fighting back?
Amy Contrada is with MassResistance and author of Mitt Romney's Deception.  She has degrees from Tufts and Brown plus a diploma in violin-making.  See for some of her writing.

Boston Pilot Promotes Child-Abuser Cardinal’s Service to Church

'Uncle Ted' McCarrick's evil perversions have been all over the news, both Catholic and secular, for some time now, but the modernists seem to be determined to downplay his vile behaviour in an attempt to derail the narrative, and paint him as a great guy who had a 'global impact'. Shame on 'Catholic' News Service which is under the control of the US Hierarchy as a division of the USCCB for writing it. You know, those same Bishops who knew of, and covered up, McCarrick's evil actions for decades. And shame on the 'Pilot' for publishing it.

From the Boston Catholic Insider

In the wake of Cardinal McCarrick’s being removed from public ministry over a credible claim of sexual abuse of a minor — plus reports of past sexual activity with adults and associated settlements – it’s disgraceful that the Boston Pilot promoted a puff piece today highlighting McCarrick’s service to the Catholic Church.

This morning, the Boston Pilot emailed thousands of people on their email a message with the subject, “Cardinal McCarrick’s 60 years of ministry had global impact.”  Here’s the email sent to BCI by an astute reader.


The email linked to a piece posted on the Pilot’s website and syndicated from Catholic News Service.  After someone called the Pilot and complained about how inappropriate this post was, it was promptly taken down.  Still, one wonders how something this bad got posted and broadly distributed by The Boston Pilot in the first place, and we are asking readers to contact the Pilot’s leadership to complain and ask for an explanation.

Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual abuse of a minor and sexual harrassment of adults has been broadly reported.  Here are just a few articles:

Beyond the horror of the abuse of an altar boy, McCarrick was well known for forcing himself on seminarians and young priests, and two settlements were reached adults.  According to Lifesite News:
The cardinal is alleged to have used his position to prey upon young men under his authority — with a penchant for inviting seminarians or young priests to sleep in the same bed with him — and no one willing to speak up, afraid of repercussions from blowing the whistle on the well-connected cardinal.

It is disgraceful and cruel to victims of this abusive behavior that the Boston Pilot would go out of its way to promote the “global impact” of McCarrick’s 60 years of ministry.  Is no one in Braintree concerned about the emotional trauma and negative impact of his sexual abuse and harrassment on the victims McCarrick preyed on?
Someone needs to explain how a decision was made to promote this piece and who didn’t realize how disrespectful and downright stupid it was to email it out to Pilot readers and post a link to it online.  And CNS is equally disrespectful for writing it in the first place.

Take a moment to email the Boston Pilot leadership to let them know you want an explanation for why this happened and how they will ensure it never happens again.  And also, please email Catholic News Service and ask them to take down their piece.

Boston Pilot Editor, Antonio Enrique:
Bishop Robert Reed:
CNS Editor, Greg Erlander:
Keep us posted if you get a response.

St. Gilbert? In Coming Weeks, the Fate of G.K. Chesterton Will Be Known

I have posted several article on the Cause of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, but here is a link to the  Catholic G.K. Chesterton Society., which is promoting his Cause, and the Prayer for his Canonisation. Pray!

God Our Father, Thou didst fill the life of Thy servant Gilbert Keith Chesterton with a sense of wonder and joy, and gave him a faith which was the foundation of his ceaseless work, a charity towards all men, particularly his opponents, and a hope which sprang from his lifelong gratitude for the gift of human life. May his innocence and his laughter, his constancy in fighting for the Christian faith in a world losing belief, his lifelong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and his love for all men, especially for the poor, bring cheerfulness to those in despair, conviction and warmth to lukewarm believers and the knowledge of God to those without faith. We beg Thee to grant the favours we ask through his intercession, [and especially for……] so that his holiness may be recognized by all and the Church may proclaim him Blessed. We ask this through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

From the National Catholic Register

Is the process of canonization about to start for the British writer?

British writer G.K. Chesterton, shown in a portrait circa 1920, may be considered for sainthood. A priest has been investigating his life and will share his findings soon. (Public domain)

Is he or is he not on the road to being canonized?

In the coming weeks, the fate of Gilbert Keith Chesterton will be known.

Soon, all eyes will turn upon Canon John Udris as he presents his written report to the bishop of Northampton, England, with, thereafter, a decision being made.

For the past five years, Canon Udris has been the man tasked by Bishop Peter Doyle to explore whether Chesterton was a saint. Before embarking on this latest investigation, Canon Udris was already well-acquainted with the life and writings of the author, not least because the cleric had been the parish priest of Beaconsfield, the English town approximately 25 miles northwest of London, where Chesterton lived with his wife, Frances, from 1909 until his death in 1936.

Beaconsfield is also the reason why the Catholic Diocese of Northampton is involved. It is within its boundaries that that town lies, and it is in the town’s cemetery where Chesterton’s grave is found.

To be clear, Chesterton has not cleared the first hurdle of the process necessary to declare someone a saint. Currently, the ongoing preliminary investigation revolves around simply what Chesterton’s contemporaries thought of him — did they sense sanctity in the writer?

Needless to say, Canon Udris has spent many hours browsing over records, press reports and Chesterton’s countless works, papers and notebooks in the British Library and elsewhere. Letters to the author’s wife shortly after Chesterton’s death have been especially important in establishing the immediate response to that news and people’s then-unfiltered views of the writer.

It would be fair to say Chesterton remains a giant in English Letters, and even more so a towering figure in today’s Catholic literary world. The debate about his sanctity may be of great significance to the Church in general, but to Catholic writers, it is of particular significance.

In his lifetime, Chesterton was a controversialist. So, perhaps not surprisingly, there have been voices raised in favor and against this proposition of canonization. Both sides claim to be devotees of the author’s work; both sides claim to have Chesterton’s legacy to the fore in arriving at their differing positions.

The Case for the Prosecution

There are two main objections raised against the cause of Chesterton going forward.

The first is the most straightforward. In short, there is no local “cult,” or following.

As Canon Udris told the Register, “An unusual aspect about this potential cause is a distinct lack of local cult, though a similar thing could be said about Newman until relatively recently. But this is certainly changing.”

There are many who admire Chesterton the writer, the stylist, the literary character — but this is not the same as a cult around his holy intercession.

Canon Udris remembers that, in all his years in Beaconsfield, many would come to his presbytery door asking directions to the grave of Chesterton or where to find the house he shared with Frances. Invariably, those asking these questions would be doing so in North American accents. Father Udris remembers one priest visiting from the United States prophesizing that Chesterton’s “tomb shall be a sacred shrine for many an American.”

Unlike North America, though, in England today Chesterton is chiefly remembered as the creator of the Father Brown stories and little else. Some literati would recognize Chesterton as a great stylist of the early 20th century, but even they are a minority.

The recent news reports of a possible declaration on Chesterton’s process being opened was met with some amusement in the British press, but not much else, as he is no longer a household name. Any resultant debate about his possible canonization has occurred within the world of Catholic journalism. The main bone of contention being that Chesterton’s cause cannot, must not, advance, due to the writer’s alleged anti-Semitism.

Whereas the first problem with the Chesterton cause, lack of local cult, is a local issue, the other accusation is a universal one that will spark debate and reaction from quarters not normally interested in the cause of saints.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, journalist Melanie McDonagh pointed out, “For the Catholic Church to declare someone a saint says something about the Church as well as about the individual concerned. And if the bishop of Northampton has any sense, he’ll park the matter of G.K. right there. Because Chesterton, for all his merits, was anti-Semitic.”

She goes on to add, “[Chesterton] felt that Jews were fundamentally not English, that Judaism mattered more to them than the countries where they lived.”

She concludes, “This view, which Chesterton articulated before the Holocaust, was most fully expressed in his hair-raising suggestion that Jews in public life should wear Oriental dress, by way of reminder that they were not really English. It’s not acceptable, not now, not then, for a man, no matter how great in other ways, to be declared a saint who says as much. It is a flaw which all his other merits cannot put right. Canonizing him would be, to put it mildly, impolitic.”

The Case for the Defense

There are many Catholic writers influenced by Chesterton — some more so than others. A number have been converted to Catholicism or had their conversion process started by reading Chesterton’s work.

Take, for example, Joseph Pearce, writer and broadcaster, who penned a biography of Chesterton in 1990s.

Speaking to the Register, Pearce sees no problems with the ongoing process of investigation or what it may turn up: “I’m delighted that Chesterton’s cause might be opened, not least because he is indubitably the most eloquent defender of the faith since Newman.”

Pearce is not concerned about any potential fallout from this process, saying, “I doubt that Chesterton’s cause, should it be opened, will alienate many readers. Non-Catholic readers of Chesterton are already aware of his vibrant Catholicism; on the other hand, many Catholics who have not read Chesterton will be more likely to do so were his cause to be opened.”

From a personal perspective, Pearce added, “Chesterton, under grace, was the most important influence on my conversion to Catholicism. As such, I have an unpayable debt of gratitude to him.”

It is worth remembering that that journey of which Pearce speaks began when he was in a London prison cell, as he was then a leading force in far-right extremism. Pearce points to Chesterton’s work as helping him move away from his then-prejudices.

Another witness for the defense is also a writer whose conversion process was influenced by Chesterton.

Dawn Eden Goldstein, bestselling author and a Jewish convert, told the Register, “I credit Chesterton’s novel The Man Who Was Thursday with sparking my conversion. With its powerful treatment of the meaning of suffering, it opened me up to an understanding of what Christian faith is about.”

Goldstein sees a bigger picture than just that of a process initiated by an obscure English diocese.

“G.K. Chesterton was in many respects a great witness for the faith, so I have no objection to his cause being opened,” she said. “That said, there are questions concerning whether his writings and way of life as a whole displayed the heroic virtue required for sainthood. The canonization process will necessarily entail an investigation into those questions.”

For Goldstein, the whole process is one of faith, both Chesterton’s and for today’s Catholics.

“Given that formal canonization is generally considered to be an infallible act of the magisterium, I trust the process,” she said. “The ultimate outcome is up to divine Providence.” She added, “If Chesterton becomes a saint, it will be because God wants the faithful to see him as a model and to ask his intercession. If not, the beauty and wisdom of the best of Chesterton’s writings will remain important for the Church.”

So the defense could point to the “spark” of conversion from a former violent racist and a Jewish convert to Catholicism, both influenced by the pen of Chesterton. Given the claims against him, this is a paradox the Englishman would have relished.

On the subject of anti-Semitism, Canon Udris told the Register, “Let’s be clear that if the alleged anti-Semitism can’t be credibly countered, there will be no cause. It’s an allegation he had to defend himself against in his lifetime. Yes, there are things he wrote that now make us wince. Yes, there are things that now sound offensive to us. But the more I read Chesterton, the more I see he could have no truck with any kind of hatred, except the hatred of ideas; eschewed those that espoused any kind of ethnic hatred. More than that, he sought to defend with his pen the victims of such ideas.”

Further Concerns

Some Catholics have reservations about Chesterton the “saint” simply on account of that putting off potential readers or allowing the writer to be used in ways against the Church.

This is a concern shared by Dale Ahlquist, the president of the American Chesterton Society. Speaking to the Register, he said, “There are some who think that beatification will somehow make Chesterton smaller, make him the ‘property’ of the Catholic Church. There are others who don’t know anything about Chesterton, but still manage to get him wrong: They portray him as an unrighteous man, a bigot, a lush, a glutton. They will use their misunderstanding to attack the Catholic Church. They are already alienated, but they will further alienate themselves. And there are those who have a very limited idea of what sainthood is, and they will be alienated because Chesterton breaks the mold.” 

Whatever the decision on the sanctity of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, one thing is clear — his life and writings have already influenced many for good.

As Ahlquist explained, “Chesterton brought me to the Catholic Church. Along the way, I started a literary society, a school and a publishing company, all inspired by him. I’ve written five books on Chesterton. But the point is: He became a permanent friend, a happy daily presence in my life. He inspires me to be more patient with my enemies, more humble, more charitable. His eloquence is a great pleasure, his wit a great boost, and his certitude a great comfort.”

As his investigation draws to a close, reflecting on his five years immersed in all things Chesterton, Canon Udris told the Register, “I have thoroughly enjoyed this journey. The protracted contact with G.K.’s words, ideas and influence has been such a blessing.”

Register correspondent K.V. Turley writes from London.
This story was updated after posting.