Wednesday, July 23, 2014

The Seal of Confession: Tell them absolutely NOT under any circumstances!


We are in very troublesome times for the Catholic Church, as you can tell by a speical case in Louisiana. What is happening is that the Louisiana Supreme Court is attempting to force the Church to break the seal of Confession.

The Louisiana Supreme Court is trying to compel a Baton Rouge priest to testify in court about what he may have heard in the confessions of a minor girl who was sexually abused by another church parishioner.

This would break of the seal of confession.

Send Your Instant E-Protest Now!

What happened is this: A 12 year old girl in Fr. Jeff Bayhi's parish in Baton Rouge was sexually abused by another parishioner. So, she told Rev. Bayhi about it in confession, so she claims. Thus, the Louisiana Supreme Court is ordering Rev. Bayhi to testify whether he did hear her confession, and, if so what she said.

No priest, even under the pain of death, may violate the seal of confession, no matter who is compelling him to.

The Louisiana Supreme Court knows very well that what they are asking of Rev. Bayhi is a breaking of the seal of confession which is an inherent part of the Catholic Church. This is an attack on the Catholic Faith.

Send Your Instant E-Protest Now!

Thankfully, the Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has denounced the ruling.

Responding to the court’s error, the Baton Rouge diocese said that “the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable,” and Father Bayhi is prohibited by canon law from divulging anything that he heard in the course of a confession. The court’s decision “assaults the heart of a fundamental doctrine of the Catholic faith,” the diocesan statement said.

“This matter cuts to the core of the Catholic faith, and for a civil court to inquire as to whether or not a factual situation establishes the Sacrament of Confession is a clear and unfettered violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States,” the diocese charged.

Send Your Instant E-Protest Now

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

What Is Wrong with This Story?

Written by John Horvat II


Is there a need to teach people how to dress?


A good friend of mine was commenting on a local business luncheon with the town mayor that reveals something of the state of the economy and the nation.

He reported:

“There are no pre-determined topics. Attendees can discuss any issue they like concerning challenges to their business and/or governmental issues that they would like to discuss.

“The first, and pretty much only, topic of the day was the difficulty in finding employees with a good work ethic. At this point in our culture, this is kind of like discussing the need for a cure for the common cold: everyone agrees on the need; few if any have a viable solution; fewer are willing to take initiative and try.

“At a certain point, a woman at the table mentioned her frustration with the lack of proper dress among her employees. She is the manager of a senior assisted health care facility and many of her employees are high school or college students who work part-time. She said in spite of her discussions with and counseling of the employees, they continue to arrive for work dressed like they were about to climb into bed. If that isn’t enough, she said she is also challenged with having them (men and women) wear enough clothing, if you know what I mean.

“As the discussion continued, the mayor was fully engaged in the topic and in complete agreement with the woman and others on the panel. He stressed the need to teach young people “how to dress for interviews.” Throughout the luncheon, as he was nodding in agreement,the mayor sat at our table wearing a golf shirt, untucked, and shorts that matched the color of his flip flops!”

What is wrong with this story?

Of course, it is wrong that there are not more employees with a strong work ethic and a sense of presenting themselves appropriately at work.

However, what we need much more are Americans who can step up to the plate and be examples or representative characters to others both inside and outside the workplace. It is one thing to complain about how workers present themselves and yet another to look at yourself and ask how you might better present yourself so as to inspire others to greater respect and responsibility.

Today’s culture teaches that it does not matter how one dresses as long as one feelsSubscription8.11 comfortable. However, as the business luncheon indicated, how one dresses does matter and it does have an effect on the work that is being done. What is missing is that sense of honor whereby one holds oneself to high standards despite the sacrifice or discomfort involved. A resolution that might have come out of this luncheon would be: let us dress in a manner that will serve as an example to those whom we employ. Let us defy our “everything-goes” culture and be ourselves the model that is missing. Because presentation does matter.

Do you have any examples that illustrate presentation matters?

Monday, July 14, 2014

Video: These Boys Serve God at Call to Chivalry Camp in Louisiana



On July 7, the boys attended the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass kindly offered by Father Jambon at Saint Patrick's in New Orleans. It was the best spiritual preparation for the next activity: a peaceful prayer rally in defense of the unborn.

In the highest spirit of the Ten Commandments of Chivalry, camp participants went to a Planned Parenthood construction site on Claiborne Avenue where the construction of a new abortion mill has been stalled. Signs and banners opposing the culture of death were visible.

The public response was overwhelmingly positive. Hundreds of people honked their horns and gave friendly waves to the young men while they prayed the rosary and chanted slogans in defense of the unborn, who are mercilessly slaughtered in the name of "choice."

Friday, July 11, 2014

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration? |




e3000In looking at the debate over immigration, it is almost automatically assumed that the Church’s position is one of unconditional charity toward those who enter the nation, legally or illegally.

However, is this the case? What does the Bible say about immigration? What do Church doctors and theologians say? Above all, what does the greatest of doctors, Saint Thomas Aquinas, say about immigration? Does his opinion offer some insights to the burning issues now shaking the nation and blurring the national borders?

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.

Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.

Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a time frame for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the  nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population  than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

Saint Thomas: “Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, ‘was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred.’”

Commentary: That is to say, the rules were not rigid. There were exceptions that were granted based on the circumstances. However, such exceptions were not arbitrary but always had in mind the common good. The example of Achior describes the citizenship bestowed upon the captain and his children for the good services rendered to the nation.

* * *
These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot  destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.

A proportional immigration has always been a healthy development in a society since it injects new life and qualities into a social body. But when it loses that proportion and undermines the purpose of the State, it threatens the well-being of the nation.

When this happens, the nation would do well to follow the advice of Saint Thomas Aquinas and biblical principles. The nation must practice justice and charity towards all, including foreigners, but it must above all safeguard the common good and its unity, without which no country can long endure.

What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration? |