Lepanto’s Hichborn to N.J. Teacher’s Bishop: Please Find Something Catholic or True in Your Condemnation?

by

In an open letter to New Jersey Bishop Paul Bootkoski, Lepanto Institute’s Michael Hichborn wonders what exactly the bishop found wrong with these facebook comments made by a teacher in his diocese:

Jannuzzi fbHichborn asks:

Your Excellency, I can’t speak for any other group, but the only “agenda” at the Lepanto Institute is to stand in defense of this teacher’s fidelity to Catholic teaching; a fidelity you imply is absent from her facebook post. You said, “The teacher’s comments were disturbing and do not reflect the Church’s teachings of acceptance.” There are several things that are unclear about this statement, which we hope you will clarify.

  1. What was disturbing about Mrs. Jannuzzi’s comments? Aside from the grammatical and typographical errors in her online comments, Mrs. Jannuzzi’s facebook post says in its essence that there is a homosexual agenda, this agenda is aimed at the slow extinction of western civilization, and that children and humanity need healthy families consisting of a mother and a father.
    1. Was her comment about the existence of a homosexual agenda what disturbed you? If so, you should be disturbed by the reality of it, not because she said it. We know there is a homosexual agenda because in 1989, the book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s,” lays out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame. A quick glance back shows how the plan was executed to perfection, and the end result is that same-sex “marriage” is the greatest fight of this generation.
    2. Was her comment regarding the slow extinction of western civilization disturbing? Considering the fact that no less than five cities (Sodom, Gomorrah, and three others) were completely incinerated for one of the four sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance, it seems that her only misstatement was the use of the word “slow.”
    3. It’s hardly conceivable that you would be disturbed by her closing statement that children and humanity need healthy families consisting of a mother and a father. So please explain to the faithful in precise and unambiguous terms what was disturbing about Mrs. Jannuzzi’s facebook post.
  2. What did Mrs. Jannuzzi say that did not reflect Catholic teaching? If there is something which Mrs. Jannuzzi said that is not in line with Catholic teaching, then the faithful need to be taught by Your Excellency what she said that was in error, and what the teaching of the Church is.
  3. What is the Catholic teaching on Acceptance? I searched all through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I can’t find a single reference to a teaching on “acceptance.” Would Your Excellency be so kind as to explain to the faithful what the Magisterial teaching on “acceptance” is so that we may be sure of living in union with the teachings of Holy Mother Church?

The good Bishop Bootkoski told the press that the teacher was on leave and not fired, but Hichborn notes in his letter that her children say her contract was not renewed.  He seems to have lied.

Hichborn closes with:

Your Excellency, this situation is greatly distressing to the faithful. It is clear that the world is engaging in an all-out assault on the Church’s moral teachings and that our freedom to openly practice our faith is in grave danger. Please reexamine and reconsider the injustice being done to a faithful Catholic teacher in your employ.

God bless you, Your Excellency.

It’s unfortunate that we are placed in a position to have to be so gentle and respectful toward such men, is it not?  Who has done this to us and what have we done to enable them?

 

 

 

False Bishops Do The Thugocracy’s Dirty Work

by
Peter-F-Christensen-catholicidaho-org

Our Church commands its death by ‘ecumencide’

At Restore D.C. Catholicism, there are no righteous arrows spared for cowardly double-tongued bishops who betray good Catholics in their care.

Many of us have heard of Patricia Jannuzzi, a theology teacher at Immaculata High School in Somerville NJ.  She had posted on her private Facebook page, defending true marriage and exposing the gay agenda for what it is – part of a push to extinguish western civilization.  Lepanto Institute saved her post, because the school demanded that she take it down before informing her that her contract would not be renewed.  As you read the post, do you find in there anything that is at variance with Church teaching?  Neither do I.  So why did her school fire her?

A former student of hers stumbled across it.  He was miffed to read it, as he himself is gay.  He also is the nephew of Hollywood left-wing Susan Sarandon.  So auntie got all the minions together and they started to blast the school – much like a similar bunch did to the Archdiocese of Washington three years ago when Father Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion to a flaming lesbian.  And like the Archdiocese of Washington, they abandoned their Catholic principles and displayed all the spinal fortitude of jellyfish.  The ease with which they cast aside their allegiance to the Teaching of Jesus Christ cause me to believe if such allegiance was really present; they were way too quick to evict from their midst a truly Catholic teacher who proclaimed true Catholic morality.

Too quick?  Forever would be too quick to punish a woman for simply expressing a love for truth, children, morality, and the Faith.

I’d suggest that we too make our displeasure known to the school and to do so repeatedly.  I will say one thing for the gay cartel.  They are tenacious and ready to drop everything and act for their beliefs, such as they are.  We on the other hand tend to be too demure, reserved, deferential in the face of those who need to hear the truth from us and even to be rebuked by us.  Here is the contact information for the school.  Please utilize it, but there is also one more step.

The school’s site posted a horrid statement by the local bishop, Bishop Paul Bootkoski of the Diocese of Metuchen.  I’ll link to it as it appears on that diocesan site.  It is one along the apostolic line of Judas.  One line of his is that “the teacher’s comments are disturbing and do not reflect the Church’s teachings of acceptance”.  I can only say that this is heresy.  The Church has never taught the acceptance of sinful behavior.  Ms. Jannuzzi most certainly did articulate the Church’s teaching regarding sodomy.  Either the bishop is blissfully ignorant of basic moral teaching or some sugar daddies are threatening to cut off funds – or Sarandon sycophants are calling and saying mean things to hurt his feelings!  Well, like Lepanto and others, we must all contact Bishop Bootkoski ourselves and set the record straight.

It’s heresy, and the bishop is concerned over funding or afraid of the publicity.

So that’s one bishop who betrayed a faithful Catholic.  Now onto another.  On March 3rd in the state of Idaho, a Catholic state senator, Sheryl Nuxoll, boycotted an opening prayer at a senate session that was conducted by a Hindu.  She correctly stated that hinduism is “a false faith with false gods”.  She wasn’t the only one, by the way; there were two others.  Rather than support her, or at least keep silence, Bishop Peter Christensen of the Diocese of Boise rushed to rebuke her Catholic witness, falsely claiming that Nuxoll did not “represent the opinions or teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.”  Oh, really?  News flash!  Hinduism is idolotry!  Nuxoll is correct.  As you can detect in Christenen’s screed, his thinking is infected with the syndrome known as “ecumenicide”.  Here’s contact information for that diocese; please call this treatment of Nuxoll into question.

No one should be forced to endure cursed calls to false gods and to have these curses laid upon them, their work, and the people in their trust.  If a bishop can’t understand the difference between prayers and curses, what really is he, some state enforcer in a polyester costume?

It is said: If we can’t pray to every religion we can’t pray to any of them!  If we pull out of the parade over gay floats, then no-one will benefit from out Catholic presence! If we write things publicly against gay marriage we’re not really being Catholic?  That’s a lie.

Lies, compromises, and capitulation – it all just adds up to quitting, losing, and helping others crush the Faith.

No more false bishops!  They need to get the “Chilean Treatment.”

 

 

 

Is This Noam Chomsky Catholicism?

by

Don’t let us down this time

There continues to be considerable back and forth about a disorientation in the Church, about the heretical character to the new FrancisChurch and what to do about it.  It doesn’t wane because it’s constantly prompted and rejuvenated by the Pope.  For what purpose did Pope Francis give yet another interview to his atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, where we now hear that the Pope is one of those who believes there is no Hell, just annihilation?  Will the Pope retract?  Will this also be placed among the Pope’s other interviews at the Vatican website?

Why do these things keep happening?  Is there some point or mission to this Pope, placed rather abruptly at the head of the Church when a faithful Pope astoundingly stepped down due to a lack of energy?  It’s fascinating how the Leftist media was in full-gushing hype mode the moment he emerged on the balcony in 2013, and they haven’t stopped.  Why do they care?  Why do atheists feel the need to comment and applaud?  Why do Communists?

Why does shrill anti-Catholic dissident Garry Wills sing praises of Pope Francis, telling us he chose the name of St. Francis because he was a ‘subversive‘ and a ‘radical’; and why in the world is Noam Chomsky so interested?

I think there are a few clues in this video of Chomsky.  In it he gives a rendition of history and unfortunately, ‘geopolitical’ perspective on the Catholic Church, Vatican II, Latin America, and Francis.  It’s becoming increasingly apparent that hard-Leftists like Chomsky, despite the fact that they are generally atheists who hate the Church, seem to have a certain understanding of Pope Francis.

To summarize: In the mind of Chomsky Vatican II was a sort of ‘liberation’ of the Gospel from elitists who captured and suppressed it since the time of Constantine.  Jesus himself was a ‘radical pacifist,’ but that true Jesus has only now been revealed.  As an immediate result of VII, Liberation Theology was born in Latin America, where armies of new Catholic clergy and religious went among the poor and the rural organizing peoples’ rebellions.  According to Chomsky, this was the natural result of the now-liberated Gospel.

Next, the U.S. right-wing anti-Communists, through vehicles like the “School of the Americas”, moved to crush these rebellions, creating “a long bloody list of religious martyrs” like Abp. Oscar Romero.  These Americans lined up with the Vatican against these new Catholics because they “didn’t want the true Gospel to be taken seriously.”

There are two things we can say about this Noam Chomsky idea of ‘c’atholicism.  It’s radical.  It’s also very Protestant, co-opting Christian purity by claiming to reach deep into history beyond a time when the Church was not persecuted.

Citing an account in the New York times, Chomsky agrees that Pope Francis did not side sufficiently with the people in what was a losing fight.  So, Catholics need to ask ourselves in light of this Latin American reality, “To what degree does the Pope align with this vision of the Church?”  If he wisely played things safe in the brutal environment back then, what does he have in mind now that he’s Pope and, America being what it now is, he rides powerful tail winds and faces much weaker opposition?

A Church for the Poor

This weekend Pope Francis corralled homeless people again to circulate among the crowds in St. Peter’s Square and distribute pocket Gospels.  Message: The neediest bring us the word of God.

This latest stunt is the thousandth iteration of the ‘poor are the center of the Gospel’ theme the Pope pounds home, but is that true?  Are the poor at the center of the Gospel?  This ‘preferential option for the poor’:  is that truly Church teaching?

I know Our Lord teaches us charity and that certainly includes love for the poor.  I know He also teaches (and St. Francis reinforces) a love for poverty, for the discipline and the holiness which can be gained through it, through unselfishness and generosity.

The problem is there is really much much more to the Gospel than that.  To elevate concern for the poor to the center is to skew and twist it, to make the Gospel only something material just like the Communists do to everything.