My homily from Sunday, February 5th:
Last year our Bishop’s Annual Appeal goal was $132,582 and 486 of us pledged $156,822. Bishop Hartmayer and I are very grateful for your stunning generosity. This year our goal is goal is $139,705.
My personal goal would be that all of our nearly 1300 households would make a pledge, but that can only happen through a miracle of God. So I am setting a personal goal for the parish of 500 households only 14 more households than last year.
I’m making a pledge of $600 and I ask you to meet or exceed my pledge according to your means of course.
You’ve seen and heard from our new bishop why he needs your sacrificial offerings and why we need to give, because we are called as Catholics to be generous stewards of God’s gifts to us which includes our hard earned money. So please respond.
But our bishop needs our support in combating the greatest crisis in the history of religion in the United States of America. President Obama is creating not only a constitutional crisis for our country but also instigating what might be justifiable, peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience from Catholics as it pertains to the President’s plan to force the Catholic Church to provide artificial contraception, abortificiants and abortions for anyone who works for the Catholic Church and her institutions. This is a clear violation of God’s law which is above the President’s law and Catholics must support our bishops who will be fighting this in the most peaceful ways possible and with all the tools at our disposal.
The reason the Church teaches against the use of artificial birth control is that it violates natural law. Natural law is a secular way to discover divine law. For Catholics divine law is not optional nor can we be forced to go against natural law which reveals divine law as well as our Scriptures and Tradition which forbid certain acts and call the immoral. Secularists within the Church and outside have been waging war with the Catholic Church over natural law since Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968 reiterating the Church’s infallible teaching that divine law is to be discovered in natural law and that the Church cannot change its moral teachings if it violates natural law and thus divine law. The pope did not cave into the pressures of secularists to change Church teaching as the pope has no authority to change divine law and subsequent popes have upheld in the most authoritative way the legitimacy of Humane Vitae and the prophetic teaching Pope Paul VI gave Catholics and the world in 1968 that has so much meaning for us today.
Last week after I read our own Bishop’s letter concerning the HHS’ mandate, I had many people ask me what this was all about. They had not heard or read anything from the liberal mass media or major networks. The same news blackout of the National March for Life in Washington, DC where hundreds of thousands of people gathered in a peaceful march occurred. Compare this news blackout to the vociferous liberal mass media coverage of the Susan Komen foundation’s initial decision to no longer give funds to Planned Parenthood and the pressure that came from this from liberals that forced the Komen Foundation to cave in to their threats and demands. Compare it also to the news coverage now for weeks of the Occupy Wall Street movement. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence from the liberal elitist press to keep the nation from knowing what President Obama is doing in his plan to interfere with Religious organizations in general and the Catholic Church in particular with his brand of big government control of everything and everyone.
Catholics should consider now what godless secularism is doing to our country and now trying to do to our Church. If they are successful in this, what will be next? Will we be forced to have same sex marriage ceremonies in the Church? Will we be prevented from speaking out against same sex marriage and the President as it regards religious liberty and freedom of Conscience? Will we be accused of hate crimes if we do speak out and proclaim unequivocally our Church’s teachings? Will we be forced to hire those who disagree with our faith or even be forced to ordain women to the priesthood?
Will the “emperor” force us to do that which our God and our religion dictate we cannot? What will be our response? In the Old Testament times when the Jews lost the Promise Land and self-governance and were taken over by the pagans in the Babylonian Exile, the emperor wanted to unite his kingdom and all in it under the laws of paganism. He wanted everyone to follow the same laws. So he began to force the Jews to eat pork against their religious laws. Many acquiesced or others pretended to eat pork when it really wasn’t. But the mother of seven sons told her sons to reject the emperor’s demands and not be forced by him to eat pork. They were all faithful to God’s law at their mother’s prodding. She watched as all seven of her sons died at the hands of the emperor and lastly she was killed, all martyrs for their Jewish faith and fidelity to God’s law.
What will we Catholics do when President Barack Hussein Obama tries to force the Catholic Church to eat Pork and not just on Fridays but every day by this Health and Human Services dictatorship? Will we acquiesce or listen to Holy Mother Church and our bishops who say resist and resist with all the powers of heaven at your disposal?
In Ireland last week a bishop at Mass spoke against godless secularism and what this is doing to the Irish culture. A self-professed “godless secularist” intends to bring hate speech charges against the bishop. Liberals dislike free speech when it is directed against their secularism.
Hate speech against those who in their churches preach what they believe to be true about marriage and homosexual sins, not to mention heterosexual sins have already been charged with hate speech in our neighbors to the north, Canada. They are ahead of us in godless secularism or at least pushing God to the private and removing God and His Church from the public square.
Can this happen in America? Yes! If you think that I’m off the wall on this, keep in mind that the Archbishop of the Armed Forces in this country sent a letter to all Catholic chaplains to be read at Mass last Sunday at all military chapels where Mass is celebrated. This is what happened and I quote:
(Quote)“On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortificiants and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.
Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.
Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.” (closed quote)
Now you would think that this story concerning the archbishop and the military archdiocese would have merited front page news and coverage by the three major networks. Did anyone see any coverage? No! a total blackout and over something concerning our Constitution’s protection of free speech and the free exercise of religion.
I am an immigrant to this country. My father who was born in 1910 in Canada came to America when he was 17 and eventually ended up in New York City. In 1940 he became an American citizen by choice and in 1941 he was drafted into the army and served our country honorable in World War II, willing to sacrifice his life for our freedoms. He served in North Africa and then in Italy. He met my mother in northern Italy and on December 1, 1945 they were married there. They stayed in Italy until 1957 when we “immigrated” to America (Georgia). My mother chose to become an American citizen in 1959.
She knew firsthand the horrors of Nazism that reared its ugly head with Hitler beginning in the 1920’s and the fascism of the Italian State under Mussolini. She was in her 20’s where the war came to her city of Livorno in the early 1940’s. Her family’s apartment building was destroyed in an air-raid, many of their friends and relatives died and the Italian government moved them to the hills of Siena to escape what was happening. Outside Siena they lived in caves for months at a time and had to forage for what little they could find to eat. She experienced the harassment of the Nazi soldiers first hand and feared them greatly.
My brothers and sisters if your loyalty to your political party and whatever extremes are present in it is greater than your loyalty to God and to His Church and the religious liberty our American Constitution guarantees religions in this country as well as freedom of conscience, I ask you to repent and be loyal first to God and Church and let all other powers fall behind Him and His Church!
Conclusion: My Catholic brothers and sisters, it’s time to wake up the sleeping giant that is us, 70 million Catholics throughout the world. Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life for the Church which we celebrate at this altar every day calls us to share in His sacrifice and do spiritual battle with those who would suppress Holy Church and disfigure her moral teachings in every age. In the 1920’s it was Nazism and Fascism until the mid 1940’s. After that and through the 80’s it was communism, today it is the dictatorship of political godless secularism that half our country accepts and evidently President Obama accepts.
We are in a spiritual battle for the soul of our Church and our country that could well lead to peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience. The Catholic Church as two role models for this civil disobedience, one Catholic and one Baptist! The Catholic role model is Pope John Paul II whose leadership led to the fall of communism in Poland and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union! The other is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his peaceful, non violent civil disobedience that landed him in jail many times but led to the full rights of African Americans who through the law of the land had been treated as second class citizens. He is a martyr for this great cause!
Let us support our parish and our diocese and our new Bishop Gregory John Hartmayer who along with other faithful bishops throughout this country and the world with Pope Benedict XVI have an immense role to play in this spiritual battle against godless secularism! But most of all let us worship Christ the King and put all other worldly kings, queens, dictators, presidents and emperors in their place through prayer, fasting, sacrificial giving and Catholic political action!
22 comments:
For those who follow this blog, but do not have the privilege of attending St. Joseph Church... it is a testament to Fr. McDonald and the other priests we have had at St. Joseph's that, following the delivery of this homily at the 9:30 Mass on Sunday, the congregation borke into spontaneous applause.
Marc
FRAJM on Sunday--
"We are in a spiritual battle for the soul of our Church and our country that could well lead to peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience."
NANCY PELOSI on Monday--
Reporter citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law: "will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?"
PELOSI: "I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it."
Question: Who ARE our "fellow Catholics". Millions of souls hang in the balance...
Marc, Although I am not normally a fan of applause during Mass, there are times when it is definitely in order, and I would certainly have joined in, had I been in attendance.
What does it mean to be a Catholic?
I say it means to beleive what the Catholic Church teaches and to do your very best to follow those teachings. This means obedience to the Pope and to Divine Law.
Nancy Pelosi only calls herself Catholic, and I don't understand why. The "fellow Catholics" that she refers to must be of the same 'in name only' types.
I say that the privilege to call themselves Catholic should be stripped from them- they make the rest of us look bad.
Who ARE our fellow Catholics?
According to the Public Religion Research Institute poll released today, 58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
Millions of souls hanging in the balance...
It was great. It was like a speech from William Wallace,Henry V or Knute Rockne. I'm ready to do battle!
VIVAT IESUS!
Sunday February 5th 2012 was a day when I heard a homily that I thought I would never hear, but I am thankful that I did hear the strong voice of an obedient servant of the Lord. I want to thank and commend Fr. McDonald for saying what needed to be said, it gave me strength and hope that we will prevail, it may be costly, it may be painful, but the Church will prevail, for our Lord promised that this Church united with Peter shall never be drawn in, and that he would be with us until the end of age. I hope and pray that the Church has many others with the courage, and fortitude to speak out against this oppressive and tyrannical mandate.
Notwithstanding wild-eyed cries to the contrary, THE HEALTH CARE LAW DOES NOT FORCE EMPLOYERS TO ACT CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS--unless one supposes the employers' religion forbids even the payment of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion).
Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. When moral binds for individuals can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
Here, there is no need for such an exemption, since no employer is being "forced," as some commentators rage, to act contrary to his or her belief. In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide their employees with any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide their employees with health plans that do not qualify (e.g., ones without provisions they deem objectionable) and pay lower assessments.
The employers may not like paying the assessments or what the government will do with the money it receives. But that is not a moral dilemma of the sort supposed by many commentators, but rather a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers--who don't much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. That is hardly call for a special "exemption" from the law. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, whatever) each of us opposes?
Doug Indeap, with respect, I offer this: "...President Obama’s plan to impose immoral policies on private medical insurance plans."
This is an excerpt from a commentary by canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters on the subject of Nancy Pelosi's protracted denial of, and disobedience to, the teaching of the Church.
I'm sorry, but I think most of us--and, it appears, Dr. Peters--would disagree with your analysis that paying money to the government which we know will be used for immoral purposes does not make us participants.
Indeap, It is about government intrusion and socialist policies that will inevitably conflict with Christian Catholic morality. This is only the most glaring example to date. Now, run on along and get ready to go cast your vote for Obama...
Doug, in most cases you would be correct. This is why the Church has only complained about the policy, not the process until now. In this case the Government is exacting a fee, as it does for Social Security or for a Passport, and applying directly to that purpose. It is not a voluntary action and is under threat of force.
rcg
Indeap is a California lawyer...'nuff said. He is logic chopping.
Indeap, culpability does hold us accountable to an extent. I don't have much faith in our legal system any more, since the rejection of natural law as the legal foundation our system; our legal system has become as relativistic as the society it represents. Our legal systems foundation today is whim and desire. If they want it to happen they will think of a way to get it done and make it sound good later. The Constitution is becoming a historic piece of paper of a bygone era, and not the foundation document our forefathers intended. The Constitution was built on the foundation of natural law, once removed the document is then changed how it is interpreted changes dynamically from what the founding fathers envisioned. Relativism!
1. If an employer pays employees with cash, and the employees choose to use that cash to buy illicit drugs, is the employer "buying" the drugs for them? 2. If an employer includes paid vacation in the pay package, and the employees choose to go to Las Vegas to drink, gamble, and whatever else that stays in Vegas, is the employer "paying" the employee to engage in these activities? 3. If an employer includes a normal (nonreligious) insurance policy in the pay package, and employees choose legal health procedures that go against the employer's religious beliefs (i.e. blood transfusions, birth control, organ transplants, etc., is the employer "providing" those services to the employees?
By the rationale offered by some here, is there any substantial difference between these three cases?
Oh, my. If an employee chooses to spend on things illicit, that is not parellel to the case before us, wherein the FedGov has declared that the employer, before the fact, knows that illicit services will be bought, and coerces his participation.
I know that what passes in the legal profession for logic would not pass muster with most formal logicians, but please.
It is called "principle." Hey, lawyer, look it up...LOL!
Indeap, is that the best you can come up with? Your logic or lack of it does not follow the reality of the issue at all. Suggest you go back and learn your Catechism, I am sure most of our 4th grade students at St. Joseph school could see the error in your statements. As most liberals go, you just don't get it. The Obama administration has overstepped its boundaries, and is violating the Constitution, it is blatantly clear to see, you cannot provide any reasonable or rational argument otherwise. Why is it that you liberals have to always fight the Church on what she teaches, get with the program, either your in or out. The Church cannot change the truth no matter how badly society may want it to, read my lips "it ant going to happen", the Church will never say ok to abortion, to artificial contraception, to women priest so get over it.
I heard this homily at 5pm mass and was so impressed. Father had my full attention and appreciation. Thank You so much for educating us!
Our laws have long made health plans available to most people in the form of "employee benefits" received through their employers. Apart from political expediency, employers did not need to be involved at all, but since the law put them in that position, they effectively have had a say in what types of plans are available to their employees. Some employers have even taken advantage of their position to tailor the plans they make available to fit their own religious views, rather than leave such matters to their employees.
Now that the government has prescribed that health plans provide services that do not conform to the religious views of some employers, those employers have complained they face a moral bind--i.e., they are "forced" to provide plans that include services they find objectionable. This bind could have been avoided if the law had not required employers to provide such qualifying health plans and, instead, simply made such plans directly available to everyone, funding them through taxes or assessments paid by employers relieved of the burden of providing health plans. Had the government done that, employers would not face a moral bind and health plans would be widely available as the law intends.
Oh. Wait. Does the current health law afford employers that very option? Why, yes, it does. Eureka! No moral bind! (And the assessments, BTW, are hardly prohibitive as some commentators suppose. Some employers, indeed, are considering that option because it is economically advantageous.)
Problem solved--except perhaps for an employer who really desires not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather wants to retain control of his employees' health plans, limit their choices to conform to his religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Oh. Wait. Aren't some employers clamoring for just such an exemption, so they can do just that? Why, yes, they are.
Inshallow, you are a socialist...government, government, government. But, you are from California....
Indeap, you still don’t get it, so let me explain. The issue at hand is a violation of the 1st Amendment, 9th Amendment, freedom of conscience, and natural law. Most people have the misconception that the Constitution is our countries foundation document, but it is not, the Declaration of Independence is the countries foundation document, the Declaration of Independence is a Natural rights (Natural Law) document which expresses those rights that are not given to us by human law or government. Natural law is the legal foundation of our country and our Constitution, in other words we can have no civil or legal rights without natural rights. (At least that was the intent of the founding fathers) The declaration of independence gives us the right to dissolve and abolish our government and institute another one, example of this is when our first government, Articles of Confederation was dissolved and the Constitution was implemented. For most of our history it was understood that you cannot correctly interpret the Constitution outside the view of the Declaration of Independence or outside of Natural law. This view has been abandoned by our legal system and is the root cause for the judicial activism and relativistic rulings coming down from our courts. This view is still held by a few (Supreme Court Justice Clearance Thomas for one) but as a whole it has been pushed aside and thrown into the ash heap of history to our detriment. So where does all this lead us, over the last 40 years our government and judicial system have continually violated natural law, with legalizing abortion, same sex marriage, and now mandating sterilization, abortive services and contraception to religious communities, this is a clear case of a violation of natural rights guaranteed to us in the Declaration of Independence. The possibility of the violation of Natural rights is the precise reason for the 9th Amendment. The understanding of the intent of the founding fathers is that, abortion; same sex marriage and forcing institutions to violate their conscience by providing services that violate our natural rights would be deemed illegal and immoral. The option to pay a fee if you don’t want to participate in the coverage is just a smoke and mirrors, and can be looked at as nothing more than pure extortion (last time I checked that was illegal also). It puts religious institutions at a distinct disadvantage, because of the penalty fee, Catholic employers cannot offer prospective employees higher compensation in lieu of healthcare benefits, so to be able to higher good and highly skilled people they will have to offer a healthcare package to compete in the market place, also what is to prevent the government from raising the penalty to a level so high that it could force the institution to provide the healthcare or shut down. We have moved so far away from our Constitutional foundations, and continue to grow government to levels never dreamed of by our founding fathers, that I would say they would recognize the window dressing but not the substance of our current government.
Gerbert,
I'm quite familiar with the arguments you offer and find them unpersuasive, but I'm disinclined to redirect this health law post into that large discussion. So I'll leave you with the last word on that--for now.
Post a Comment