Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Time for Flag burning to be criminalized

In response to Hampshire College's decision to ban the American Flag from campus, the incoming Trump Administration is committed to criminalizing the burning and desecration of Old Glory. On The Kuhner Report on WRKO this afternoon, host Jeff Kuhner suggested that prison time should be the penalty for flag burning, the executive producer Brittany suggested a fine or community service at the VA, and producer Jared suggested no penalty because he's a Libertarian. 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled several decades ago that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment, and the D-party and the GOP establishment oppose punishment. Title 36 of the USC only gives the procedures, but there are no established penalties. If Congress were to establish criminal or civil penalties to Title 36, the courts will likely strike them down since there is no mention of the Flag in the Constitution. So in order to protect the laws regarding the Flag, I suggest the following Constitutional Amendment:

§1. The United States shall have a code on the proper dignity of the Flag for military and civilian usage.

§2. Civilians who are citizens of the United States shall stand upright and place their right hands across their hearts for:

(a)  The National Anthem and any other auxiliary songs of patriotic nature as declared by an Act of Congress or the President;

(b)  The Pledge of Allegiance, which shall include the words: 

“I pledge allegiance 
to the Flag 
of the United States 
of America 
and to the Republic 
for which it stands 
one nation 
under God 
indivisible 
with liberty 
and justice 
for all.”

(c)  A moment of silence in conjunction with the Flag;
(d)  The playing of “Taps”;
(e)  The hoisting and lowering of the Flag on a flagpole;
(f)   The passer-by display of the Flag during a parade.

§3.  No person shall be denied to express devotion to the Flag while in the United States, which includes saluting in section two, the public display, and the affixment of a pin or patch on regular clothing on the left side of the person above the heart.

§4.  Congress and state legislatures shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, which shall be irrevocable.

😍

Friday, November 25, 2016

Bishop Schneider Defends the Dubia of Four Cardinals

Originally Posted on Rorate Caeli, Nov. 23, 2016

A Prophetic Voice of Four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church

Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany), His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and His Eminence Walter BrandmĂŒller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, have published on November 14, 2016, the text of five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”), which previously on September 19, 2016, they sent to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Gerhard MĂŒller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with an accompanying letter. The Cardinals ask Pope Francis to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” concerning the interpretation and practical application, particularly of chapter VIII, of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and the Church’s moral teaching.

In their statement entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia,” the Cardinals say that to “many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union.” Speaking so, the Cardinals have merely stated real facts in the life of the Church. These facts are demonstrated by pastoral orientations on behalf of several dioceses and by public statements of some bishops and cardinals, who affirm that in some cases divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Holy Communion even though they continue to use the rights reserved by Divine law to validly married spouses.

In publishing a plea for clarity in a matter that touches the truth and the sanctity simultaneously of the three sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist, the Four Cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals, which consists in actively contributing so that the revelation transmitted through the Apostles might be guarded sacredly and might be faithfully interpreted. It was especially the Second Vatican Council that reminded all the members of the college of bishops as legitimate successors of the Apostles of their obligation, according to which “by Christ's institution and command they have to be solicitous for the whole Church, and that this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (Lumen gentium, 23; cf. also Christus Dominus, 5-6).

In making a public appeal to the Pope, bishops and cardinals should be moved by genuine collegial affection for the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth, following the teaching of Vatican Council II (cf. Lumen gentium, 22); in so doing they render "service to the primatial ministry" of the Pope (cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, 13). 

The entire Church in our days has to reflect upon the fact that the Holy Spirit has not in vain inspired Saint Paul to write in the Letter to the Galatians about the incident of his public correction of Peter. One has to trust that Pope Francis will accept this public appeal of the Four Cardinals in the spirit of the Apostle Peter, when St Paul offered him a fraternal correction for the good of the whole Church. May the words of that great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas, illuminate and comfort us all: "When there is a danger for the faith, subjects are required to reprove their prelates, even publicly. Since Paul, who was subject to Peter, out of the danger of scandal, publicly reproved him. And Augustine comments: "Peter himself gave an example to superiors by not disdaining to be corrected by his subjects when it occurred to them that he had departed from the right path" (Summa theol., II-II, 33, 4c).

Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls. In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, the Pope speaks of a need for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity” (n. 2). Furthermore, relationships at all levels within the Church must be free from a climate of fear and intimidation, as Pope Francis has requested in his various pronouncements.

In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the unusually violent and intolerant reactions on behalf of some bishops and cardinals against the calm and circumspect plea of the Four Cardinals cause great astonishment. Among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four Cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics. 

Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life. The above-mentioned clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth. Such a violent reaction has only one aim: to silence the voice of the truth, which is disturbing and annoying the apparently peaceful nebulous ambiguity of these clerical critics. 

The negative reactions to the public statement of the Four Cardinals resemble the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis in the fourth century. It is helpful to all to quote in the situation of the doctrinal confusion in our days some affirmations of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”. 

“You [the bishops of Gaul] who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example” (Hil. De Syn., 3).

“Your [the bishops of Gaul] invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth and, content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience” (Hil. De Syn., 4).

“I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now” (Hil. De Syn., 92).

The following words of Saint Basil the Great, addressed to the Latin Bishops, can be in some aspects applied to the situation of those who in our days ask for doctrinal clarity, including our Four Cardinals: “The one charge which is now sure to secure severe punishment is the careful keeping of the traditions of the Fathers. We are not being attacked for the sake of riches, or glory, or any temporal advantages. We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true religion, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all that utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right of free speech” (Ep. 243, 2.4).

Today those bishops and cardinals, who ask for clarity and who try to fulfill their duty in guarding sacredly and faithfully interpreting the transmitted Divine Revelation concerning the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, are no longer exiled as it was with the Nicene bishops during the Arian crisis. Contrary to the time of the Arian crisis, today, as wrote Rudolf Graber, the bishop of Ratisbone, in 1973, exile of the bishops is replaced by hush-up strategies and by slander campaigns (cf. Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973, p. 23). 

Another champion of the Catholic faith during the Arian crisis was Saint Gregory Nazianzen. He wrote the following striking characterization of the behavior of the majority of the shepherds of the Church in those times. This voice of the great Doctor of the Church should be a salutary warning for the bishops of all times: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance" (Orat. 21, 24).

When Pope Liberius in 357 signed one of the so called formulas of Sirmium, in which he deliberately discarded the dogmatically defined expression “homo-ousios” and excommunicated Saint Athanasius in order to have peace and harmony with the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops of the East, faithful Catholics and some few bishops, especially Saint Hilary of Poitiers, were deeply shocked. Saint Hilary transmitted the letter that Pope Liberius wrote to the Oriental bishops, announcing the acceptance of the formula of Sirmium and the excommunication of Saint Athanasius. In his deep pain and dismay, Saint Hilary added to the letter in a kind of desperation the phrase: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (
I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius), cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 141. Pope Liberius wanted to have peace and harmony at any price, even at the expense of the Divine truth. In his letter to the heterodox Latin bishops Ursace, Valence, and Germinius announcing to them the above-mentioned decisions, he wrote that he preferred peace and harmony to martyrdom (cf. cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 142). 

“In what a dramatic contrast stood the behavior of Pope Liberius to the following conviction of Saint Hilary of Poitiers: “We don’t make peace at the expense of the truth by making concessions in order to acquire the reputation of tolerance. We make peace by fighting legitimately according to the rules of the Holy Spirit. There is a danger to ally surreptitiously with unbelief under the beautiful name of peace.” (Hil. Ad Const., 2, 6, 2).

Blessed John Henry Newman commented on these unusual sad facts with the following wise and equilibrated affirmation: “While it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 465).

The Four Cardinals with their prophetic voice demanding doctrinal and pastoral clarity have a great merit before their own conscience, before history, and before the innumerable simple faithful Catholics of our days, who are driven to the ecclesiastical periphery, because of their fidelity to Christ’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. But above all, the Four Cardinals have a great merit in the eyes of Christ. Because of their courageous voice, their names will shine brightly at the Last Judgment. For they obeyed the voice of their conscience remembering the words of Saint Paul: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13: 8). Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

The following words inspired by the Holy Spirit retain their prophetic value especially in view of the spreading doctrinal and practical confusion regarding the Sacrament of Marriage in our days: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 3-5). 

May all, who in our days still take seriously their baptismal vows and their priestly and episcopal promises, receive the strength and the grace of God so that they may reiterate together with Saint Hilary the words: “May I always be in exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again!” (De Syn., 78). This strength and grace we wish wholeheartedly to our Four Cardinals and as well as to those who criticize them.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Chicken Charlie: "We are a global commonwealth"

The Republican Party might now have won control of the Federal Government and a supermajority of state legislatures and governorships, but Massachusetts RINO Gov. Charlie Baker has declared that "we are a global commonwealth" at a press conference this morning, in reference to a Trump administration potentially withholding Federal money to sanctuary cities (cities who don't obey immigration laws and harbor bergoglios). 

Baker is up for re-election in 2018 and needs to be defeated. But there is one problem: the MassGOP is the most liberal chapter of the Republican Party in the country and will only back a liberal to moderate candidate. Small businessman and true conservative Mark Fisher had to sue the MassGOP just to appear on the primary ballot because at the 2014 state convention they counted blanks as votes, which brought Mr. Fisher below the 15% threshold to hold a state primary. He actually got his 15% amongst actual votes, and got 25% of the vote in the September primary that year. 

Chicken Charlie regularly genuflects to the (D) Legislature by signing bills to allow men to use the ladies room, unnecessary pay equity inquiries, and treating drug addicts like little snowflakes. He wanted to lift the cap on charter schools but the two-thirds of the voters disagreed because we know it would have hurt the small, rural, successful regular public schools. Instead of fighting the teachers unions and fighting for improvement to the existing educational infrastructure, his charter school cronies wanted to get around it but formulating a ballot question that would have hurt the small public school districts. 

The Governor is wrong when he refers to Massachusetts as a "global commonwealth." We are one of the United States and are subject to the U.S. Constitution. We're one of the original Thirteen Colonies that fought the American Revolutionary War and won. Is this statement Charlie's version of trying to secede from the Union? Would Massachusetts build a wall around the state borders to prevent us from going to Hampton Beach?

In either event, in order to save the Commonwealth, Massachusetts will have to elect an independent conservative as Governor in 2018. (What I mean by independent is "unenrolled" and not a member of the United Independent Party.) This candidate will have a tough time in a potential three-way race indeed, but is doable since about 52% of Bay State voters don't belong to a political party. If they all show up to vote in two years for this candidate then this person wins. (Since the D-party is now a soft-terrorist organization we can't afford them to entrust them with any office anymore!) 

Could you be a patriotic unsung hero? 

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Real Deplorables

The Democratic Party constituency groups have held riots, marches, and protests the past few nights protesting the results of the Presidential Election. How classless. If you can't accept the results of a democratically held election then you have no business being in the United States. 

For the fifth time in U.S. history the popular vote winner lost the Electoral College, which I would assume is another reason why they would protest. The 2000 Election was controversial, but there were no riots after the Supreme Court ruling that I could recall. 

Since American history and civics are not taught properly in our schools anymore, these (mostly) young folks don't know the purpose of the Electoral College. They also don't understand that the United States is a Republic and not a democracy. Every state government, (active) county government, and most local governments are not representative democracies since we elect persons to represent us in governmental affairs. The only true democracies within the United States are the very small towns with open town hall meetings, where every registered voter has a vote on legislation of local ordinances, etc. 

The Founding Fathers did not "one man, one vote" for the President because democracy is considered mob rule. The Electoral College gives the small states a chance at the table; otherwise the Democrats, who control most major metropolitan areas, would win every time and the small states population-wise wouldn't matter. 

In theory, the popular vote winner should also win the Electoral College, which has happened most of the time anyway. But if California didn't allow illegals to vote and Evan McMullin didn't make a serious run in the state of Utah, Trump would have won the popular vote. 

Queen H. might have got the most votes overall, but that will only amount to 48% of the vote, not a majority! 52% of the people actually voted for Trump or someone else, which are the majority. These 48%, in voting for this treasonous candidate, clearly have no allegiance to the USA. These 48% are disrupting the lives of those who have basic allegiance to the USA. 

Here in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts, H got 61% of the vote to win the 11 electoral votes, while Trump only got 33% of the vote. Including the third-party candidates, only 39% of Bay State citizens voted for allegiance to the United States. This is very concerning

Looking at the county-breakdown map from Townhall.com: 


Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and D.C. are the only states that Trump did not win a county. The D-party is reduced to a regional party. If the popular vote were the measure on how we elect the President, then all the blue counties (which are mostly heavily-Democratic metropolitan areas) listed above would elect the President without even a majority of the voters! 

Ecclesiastically, Bergoglio has labeled young Traditionalist Catholics as "too rigid" because they uphold everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches (including the necessity of the Tridentine Latin Mass) and he doesn't. Frankenpope was backing Clinton so he caters to the 48% and is upset at America. TOO BAD. 

I've taken a lot of heat for announcing in September that I would vote for Trump for the survival of the Republic and my right to practice Traditional Catholicism. For those 48% who think the President-elect is a racist bigot and want to leave the country because of it, feel free to leave. He wouldn't have come close if he were a racist, trust me. 

During the last eight year of an Obama administration, I am worse-off. I was accepted, enrolled, and was forced out of a good architecture program because I simply obeyed the law  in my coursework. This had nothing to do with politics per se, but the same thing would have happened if this happened during the campaign season. 

Because of my religious and philosophical beliefs, I believe, but cannot prove in a court of law, I was discriminated every time I sent in a resume for a job. The people who run most of the companies today are in bed with liberalism (not the classical Jeffersonian kind) and think I would be a cancer.

Even amongst young Traditional Catholics, there are unfortunately no uniform positions. While the New Hampshire chapter of Juventutem supports the SSPX, the Boston chapter does not. Because, as a Bay State resident who does not attend SSPX Masses (because of their limited presence in the state) but defends them and orders material from Angelus Press now and then, I believe I've been turned-away from potential readers of this blog who want to be my wife. 

I hope this is not the case in the near future, but I've not been on a date since the last Republican administration. This might be a tall tell sign of good things to come, but again nothing is guaranteed. All I can say is I don't plan to spend Thanksgiving or Christmas with my family (immediate and extended) because most of them despise me. 

Now is the time...

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

TRUMP WINS: Republic to last at least another 4 years

Deo Gratias! 

Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States last night to avert a Constitutional crisis. Thanks to you, Trump actually won states that he was not supposed to win. This is what you get for nominating a crook. 

The Republicans retained control of Congress, which means that a lot can get done. As long as President Trump behaves himself, he will likely get things done. But it will take some time after Inauguration Day, and won't be easy. 

The bad news is that my fellow citizens of Massachusetts have voted to legalize marajuana. Shame on them! More arrests for DUI's for a drug worse than alcohol are now to be expected. 

As far as the Democratic Party is concerned, they have no credibility as a national party anymore. They cannot keep our country safe. Liberals might switch to the Green Party in the future. 

God Bless America!

Monday, October 3, 2016

This Election may have illegitimate result...

The 2016 Presidential Election may not be a fair election to begin with. There have been several reports of Dept. of Homeland Security officials asked to work overtime to rubber-stamp citizenship papers for terrorists, illegal voter registrations, and now most recently the UN interfering in America's electoral process by asking U.S. citizens (civilians) living abroad to register to vote in the states (very hard to do)! 

George Soros is pulling the strings for the (D) party. Most of the recent riots are professional protestors paid by him to help Queen Hillary. 

Depending on what the final results are, there is more reason to believe that foreign interference would have played a key role if Hillary is declared the winner once she gets her 270 electoral votes. If she abnormally picks up some states that traditionally heavily lean Republican (e.g. Texas) on her way to victory, then you can say that this election is rigged. 

If for some reason no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, presumably because one of the third-party candidates wins a state or two to block someone, then it will be up to the current House of Representatives, and there is nothing We the People can do. 

It is very clear that the Democratic Party no longer has their allegiance to the United States, hence Hillary not wearing a flag pin at the first debate. She is bought and paid for by foreign dictators. Her "H" symbol will become the new swastika. 

The Republicans are all not angels either, but at least they know whose side their on.

A Hillary win will most likely mean another civil war in the United States. More conservative states like Texas might seriously consider secession as the means of their states' survival. Instead of a potential wall on the Mexican border there might even be borders between state boundaries, which would be shameful!

On ideology, a Hillary government will most likely get rid of 163 million people via the worst mass genocide the world will ever see. This is another reason why no one in the right mind can vote for her! 

Finally, if she does win with or without suspicious results, state authorities and citizens should resist a Hillary Clinton administration. If she isn't elected in a free and fair manner, then she is not going to be recognized as the first female president, but as the first Queen.

UPDATE on Columbus Day: 

Please watch video statement below...

Friday, September 23, 2016

Unbelievable: Springfield Mass. Diocese has new high school named for Bergoglio!

Today is September 23rd, the autumn Ember Friday. Today is also the feast of St. Padre Pio, whose feast technically doesn't exist liturgically in the calendar of the missal he always said Mass according to up until his death. 

Fourteen years after Padre Pio's canonization, it is considered hate speech to name a church or school after any saint who either only said, knew, or attended the Traditional Latin Mass, a.k.a. the Catholic Mass. While relics of any class are required to be inserted into the altar mensa (stone) in order to consecrate a church and name it after that particular saint, there are less restrictions for Catholic schools and charitable organizations. It is very praiseworthy to name a Catholic school after a canonized saint of the Church or a local bishop or priest who supported Catholic education. (Cardinal Spellman in Brockton, Archbishop Williams in Braintree, and Bishop Fenwick in Peabody, all in the Archdiocese of Boston, are a few examples.) 

But the Springfield Diocese, which covers Western Massachusetts, is pretty much hippie country, and there never were a lot of Catholics in this area anyhow. When Cathedral High School was blown away by the 2011 Tornado, it closed for good. Holyoke Catholic High School saw facing low enrollment, so the two were merged into a new school named after--guess who--Pope Francis. 

Pope Francis High School is currently in temporary quarters until the new school is finished by 2018. They are using the "prep school" format where all the students where pretty uniforms. They require 60 hours of community service to graduate, and it costs $9300 this year for tuition, more than many community colleges! (For more info, look at the school's website at your own risk.)

I only came across this school after reading a high school football preview pull-out section from my local newspaper, and one of the schools had Pope Francis on the schedule. But it is classless to name a school after a pope who is never going to be canonized. 

What would happen if someone named a school after Archbishop Lefebvre?