Blog

Traditional Catholics who love the Latin Mass do a lot of good for the Church. They’re helping preserve the Church’s priceless heritage in an age where we’re quick to label things as “out of date.”

But the devil won’t let any good thing stand. He’s always ready to work under the radar to slowly, imperceptibly corrupt our good intentions and righteous indignations.

And Traditional Catholics do have a lot to be justly upset about. Once upon a time, we could look to the Church and its liturgy as a source of stability in a world of shifting values and broken families.

Yet, the past half century or so has seen priests and bishops turn on the Church’s beautiful sacred tradition in order to accommodate the secular spirit of our age. The liturgy, sacraments, and catechetical instruction have been banalized and drained of their profound depth and reverence.

All in the name of Vatican II — despite the fact that the Vatican II documents never called for this radical break with the past.

Yes, Traditional Catholics have a right to be angry. But it’s here that the devil sees his golden opportunity to use that anger for his ultimate purpose: to harm the unity of the Church and destroy Christian joy and hope in the hearts of the faithful.

In Galatians 5:22-23, St. Paul lists the fruits of the Spirit. He says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”

Notice how anger and bitterness don’t appear in this list.

The devil uses our anger toward the present state of the Church to weaken our trust in Christ and His promise to always be with us. He fuels our distrust of Christ’s chosen ministers so that we may question their legitimacy. This gives rise to perversions such as sedevacantism, which is the belief that there is no valid pope today because the “Vatican II popes” lost their office through “heresy.”

This is an extreme example, but some Traditionalists have fallen prey to it.

So what should our response be to the obvious craziness we witness in the Church today? The answer is simple: Let’s refocus on Jesus and His promise to always be with us.

Ralph Martin, who’s been on our show, speaks of the Church being under judgment right now. Jesus is letting the light shine on the rot that was hidden in the shadows. Once the rot is fully exposed, He can heal it.

Remember, God can bring good out of evil. All the corruption, scandals and destruction of faith we witness today, all of this will be used by our Lord for some glorious purpose only He can see.

So, instead of letting ourselves become bitter, we should instead ask, “Jesus, what are you doing? And how do I get on board with what you are doing?”

Our Lord’s answer may not always be what we want to hear. It may force us to examine our own sins and faults that we tend to hide under the excuse that “Well, at least we’re not as bad as them.”

I invite you to take some time to turn your glance away from the horrible things going on in the world and the Church to refocus your attention on Jesus Himself. He promised that He would never abandon us.

Do you really believe in Him?

Our culture is obsessed with blurring the distinctions between the sexes. But as it strives to condition us to accept its nonsense, the innate, complementary differences between men and women keep revealing themselves in everyday life.

You can suppress nature, but you can’t destroy it!

Here are three examples that demonstrate that traditional gender roles are inborn and that the radical feminist crowd is full of reality deniers.

1. The Embrace
When lovers embrace, it’s usually the man embracing and the woman being embraced. We speak of the man “holding” his wife and the woman being “held.” Most men would cringe if you said they were being held by their wives!

Of course, a woman may initiate the embrace if her husband has experienced great suffering or trauma. This is not a hard-and-fast rule.

But it’s the norm. If you think otherwise, walk up to random couples locked in an embrace and ask the man if he feels safe being held in his woman’s strong arms. Then, be prepared to run for your life!

2. The Proposal
Despite all the hullabaloo over our “oppressive” patriarchal society, many women still look to men to propose marriage to them. When a woman proposes, it’s noteworthy because it’s so rare.

That’s because God designed men and women to enter into reciprocal relationships with the man as the ”head.” As the head, the man initiates the relationship with the woman.

Again, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. There are exceptions, and that’s fine. We’re not saying there’s anything wrong with a woman proposing. But don’t do it in obedience to an ideology that’s intent on destroying the natural order.

3. The Sexual Act
The strongest proof of traditional gender roles is the sexual act itself. It’s obvious that the woman’s body is designed to receive and the man’s to give.

Radical feminists stumble over this obvious reality. While a woman is free to embrace a man and propose to him, she can’t grow the male organ necessary to become the giver in the sexual act. There’s only so much gender “reassignment” surgery can do to obscure the sexual differences between men and women.

These three examples so clearly show the differences between the genders that it takes a lot of willful blindness to deny it. The ideals of radical feminism and other leftist ideologies just don’t reflect the desires and aspirations of many real women.

Still, we need to acknowledge the other extreme. We’ve seen throughout history men using their status as “head” to justify abusing women and denying them their rights.

Because we live in a fallen world, men need appropriate checks that still preserve their headship. That’s why we have laws protecting abused women and ensuring that fathers can’t just walk out on their families without consequences.

So, word to the men, don’t use your headship as an excuse for bad behavior! Unless you frequent the sacraments and regularly sacrifice yourself for your wife, your headship becomes a stumbling block to your salvation.

God created men and women equal in dignity. They may not have the exact same roles, but they complement each other by reflecting different rays of the boundless love of the Holy Trinity.

It’s clear that Scripture and the teaching of the Church condemn physical homosexual acts.

But what about being romantically involved with a same-sex partner without getting physical? Is that also wrong?

The short answer is “Yes.”

But, first, let’s point out that merely experiencing a temptation is not a sin. If you have a romantic or sexual attraction to people of the same sex, that’s not sinful as long as you don’t consent to it or intentionally fuel it. We can’t always control our temptations, but we can control whether or not we give in.

The reason why romantic relationships with someone of the same sex are sinful — even if they’re not physical — is because you are still giving yourself to someone in a way that God reserved for a married man and woman.

God intended for one man and woman to give themselves in marriage in a way that is exclusive physically AND emotionally. After all, marriage is not merely a physical relationship — it also creates a deep emotional bond between the couple.

That’s why it’s also wrong to have romantic relationships with those of the opposite sex when you’re already married to someone else, even if those relationships are not physical.

Also, romantic feelings are designed to eventually culminate in physical intimacy. By trying to have a romantic same-sex relationship without a physical component, you are just courting disaster. Either you’ll eventually succumb to the temptation to get physical, or you’ll drive yourself crazy with yearnings of physical intimacy that can never be fulfilled.

There’s no winning in this scenario. The only solution is to keep your same-sex relationships 100% chaste and friendship based.

I was just reading “The Story of a Soul” by St. Thérèse of Lisieux. That woman is a warrior! Patrick Coffin rightly pointed out that she shouldn’t be called a “little flower,” but an “iron will.”

At one point in the book, St. Thérèse writes: “You alone, God, knew what I suffered.”

You alone, God. We tend to trivialize our suffering because, we say, “there’s someone who’s going through worse.” And so we feel embarrassed to acknowledge that we’re suffering. St. Thérèse could have said, “Okay, maybe I’m dealing with a bout of depression, but look what all these other people are going through.” But she had the courage to say, “You alone, God, know what I suffered.”

I think it’s important to look back on our lives and not trivialize our suffering or embarrassments.

Pope St. John Paul II says that there are two types of suffering. If you’ve got a cold, you experience physical suffering. Then there’s what he calls moral suffering. This is the suffering of the heart. It includes betrayal, the anxiety of life, depression — you know, this deep aching in your heart. The pope said that most people would rather have physical suffering than moral suffering. As for me, I’d rather have a broken leg than a broken heart any day.

The pope identifies two other kinds of suffering. There’s temporal suffering, and there’s unlimited suffering (aka Hell) — suffering without God, without love, and without everything that is good. He calls it definitive suffering forever. (George Carlin pointed out that forever is a long time, especially as you get towards the end.)

But Jesus used physical suffering and moral suffering to deal with that definitive suffering. And so we find the meaning of our suffering in His suffering. You have the opportunity in your physical or moral suffering to unite yourself to Jesus. John Paul II points out how Christ came to redeem you, even your suffering. Your suffering is like heavenly cash. And you can even apply this “heavenly cash” to loved ones!

In Colossians 1:24, St. Paul says his suffering fills in what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. People get startled by that. What does he mean? That Jesus ascended to the Father only to realize He suffered for only 98% of the human race?

John Paul II explains this passage by saying that nothing is lacking in Christ’s suffering, but Christ made room for us to participate in His salvific mission.

St. Peter talks about this in the Bible too. He actually makes a big deal out of it. If you wanna share in Christ’s glory, you’re going to have to share in His suffering.

So you have a choice: Do you share or run away?

Bishop Fulton Sheen pointed out that the man who fears suffering the most is the man who only dies once at the end of his life. The way you have to prepare for death is to practice for it. To die daily.

What does it mean to unite your sufferings with Christ? That sounds like one of those theological niceties. Does it mean you purposely seek out suffering? No. It means being well-equipped with the grace Jesus gives us. It means saying, like the saints, “Jesus, you love me so much that you allow me to suffer!”

That’s tough to do, right? I’m certainly not there yet.

We’re so familiar with Christian language and the writings of the saints that sometimes you just say exactly what they say. But do you really mean it, or are you regurgitating things?

Christ has given us an invitation. He said that we didn’t choose Him, but He chose us. He tells us “Come, follow me. I’m inviting you to live with me, to be with me.”

It’s an adventure that’s so big, so captivating, that all the trivial things fall by the wayside.

You and I are His disciples. We’re people on a mission. We said yes to it. And that means suffering — even dying if need be, to be Christ to this world.

On Friday afternoon, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco publicly stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not permitted to receive Holy Communion due to her public support of abortion in contradiction with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This means that the priests of his archdiocese are not to allow her to receive the Eucharist within the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Other bishops have followed suit for their own dioceses as well.

Banning a person from receiving the Eucharist is the Church’s statement that this person is not in full communion with the Catholic Church in their beliefs or actions. This statement only happens when that person is publicly and actively contradicting the Faith. The purpose of this ban is to prevent scandal, as well as to call the individual to repentance in order to reinstate their communion with God and the Church.

The ban flows naturally from the Church’s teaching that no one should receive the Eucharist knowing they’re in a state of mortal sin. This teaching is firmly rooted in Scripture. St. Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Deliberate support for abortion constitutes a mortal sin for one with full knowledge of the Church’s teaching.

The Church normally won’t publically bar someone from the Eucharist, because most mortal sins are committed privately. If confessed, they are protected from public knowledge by the seal of Confession.

Pelosi’s situation is different because she publicly flaunts her support for abortion. This creates scandal, and it means the Church needs to give a public response.

It’s hard to say Pelosi doesn’t know about the Church’s teaching on abortion. She’s been warned about the incompatibility of her abortion stance with her Catholic faith over and over again. And she is now challenging Archbishop Cordileone’s disciplinary action.

Catholics owe obedience to their bishops in the areas of faith and morals, as the early Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch stated:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

As Catholics, we pray for repentance and salvation of everyone. Let’s turn to Our Lord and His Mother to pray for the conversion of Pelosi’s heart.

It’s time to say it like it is: Today’s woke Left is a Gnostic death cult.

Maybe that sounds harsh to you, even if you oppose the left-wing ideologues monopolizing schools, the media, big corporations, and Hollywood.

It’s true, we should always speak charitably about others. But we can’t divorce charity from the truth. There comes a point when a movement or ideology becomes so poisonous that you just have to be blunt. Mincing words when souls are at stake (especially children’s souls) is not charity — it’s cowardice.

In case you’re wondering if I’m still being too harsh in my language, there are three reasons why today’s Left really is a Gnostic death cult.

1. It hates the world as it is
Leftists hate reality. They loathe the existence of only two genders. They hate that sex often carries a risk of pregnancy, frustrating their desire for a childless sexual utopia.

This reminds us of the Gnostics of old, who revolted against creation. They taught that the material world was evil. Many held that sex and childbearing were evil.

“But wait,” you might say. “The modern Left loves material goods, the body, and sex. That doesn’t sound like Gnosticism at all!”

But does the Left really love the body? Actually, they hate the body as it really exists, which is either male or female. They hate sex insofar as it is connected to procreation.

So while they do love indulging in bodily pleasures (as many Gnostics did), they are constantly hating the body’s limitations on their desires. They only love the fantasy body that exists in their heads.

2. The Left wants to remake the world and humanity in its own image
The woke Left now faces two choices: either accept the world as it is or remake the world and humanity in its own image.

It has chosen the latter.

This preoccupation with “utopia” is a shared passion of Leftists and all totalitarian regimes. The fascists tried it. The communists are still trying it (to no avail, as we see). The sexual revolution tried it, with people like Harvey Weinstein being painful reminders of its failure.

Of course, we are all naturally wary of power. Leftists must have a pretext to exert power over us in order to create this utopia. They tell us that the limitations nature puts on us are actually limits on our freedom.

Therefore, nature must change. And if it refuses, then it will be forced to obey.

Of course, these utopias always entail authoritarian control of a few over the masses in every aspect of their lives. (Even though we’re not quite at the level of Huxley’s “Brave New World” or Orwell’s “1984” yet, our current world is certainly starting to look more like it.)

3. When this project fails, the Left turns to death
But, of course, nature will always be victorious in the end. You can push and pull nature, but you can’t fully destroy it.

Deep down, the Leftists know this. That’s why they turn to mutilation and even death to try to get the last word.

Is nature standing in the way of a boy who wants to be a girl? Then mutilate and drug the child.

Is nature standing in the way of sex completely free of the risk of pregnancy? There’s always abortion to fall back on if contraception fails.

And it is here that the modern Left shows its true colors. Leftists are so obsessed with victory over nature that they are willing to tap into the most inhuman, darkest parts of our fallen nature in a desperate, prideful attempt to declare victory over reality.