in hoc † signo

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Of Guadalupe, Episcopal Ordinations, and Adrian Dominicans.

In Alaskana, Culture of Death, The Church, Uncategorized on 9 August, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Hat-tip to Joe at Defend-Us-In-Battle for bringing to light this forthcoming abomination.  Joe has followed up his superlative initial post with a second post about authentic ecumenism.  Rather than plowing old ground, here we will discuss why Our Lady of Guadalupe was the natural choice for such scandal.

Sr. Lorraine Reaume, O.P., is the “Pastoral Associate” at Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish.  Among her other duties, she is a board member of AFACT and regularly preaches homilies during Sunday Mass.  This latter action directly contradicts Canon Law, which states that the homily is “part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon”.  Tellingly, Sr. Lorraine is an Adrian Dominican Sister, which warrants a further discussion.

Adrian Dominican sisters currently occupy some significant seats of power at the Chancery, as Sr. Jackie Stoll, O.P. is the driving force behind the Safe Environment Training mandated for all Archdiocesan employees and volunteers, and Sr. Ann Fallon, O.P., is the superintendent of Archdiocesan schools.  And these sisters do some very good work, especially as pertains to the Corporal Works of Mercy.  For example, the Anchorage Liberal News ran a front-page Sunday feature on Sr. Jackie venturing out onto the streets of Anchorage to care for the homeless earlier this year.

However, it must needs be said the theology of the Adrian Dominicans is deeply flawed, with a tendency towards gnosticism and witchcraft.  This post over at Living His Life Abundantly pretty well sums up the occult dabblings of many of the Adrian Dominicans.  For further reading, check out Ecospirituality or a pagan Summer Solstice celebration in California (where “yin, the feminine principle of the Earth Goddess, is born and begins to wax strong”) — all of which are linked to from the Adrian Dominican home website.  And it would be remiss not to mention that Adrian Dominicans stood in solidarity with Planned Parenthood in promoting 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence.

Now I do not know where Sr. Lorraine stands on all these issues.  Perhaps she disagrees with her fellow sisters.  But here are the facts:

1. Sr. Lorraine regularly preaches the homily at Our Lady of Guadalupe, an act of disobedience to the law of the Church.

2. The Adrian Dominican sisters are inclined to heresy.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a heretical woman-bishop is welcomed to conduct an “ordination” at Our Lady of Guadalupe.


Because “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), it is our opinion that Archbishop Schwietz would do much to safeguard the unity of the Church in his archdiocese by cancelling this confusing abuse of a consecrated space.  Moreover, because “religious should carefully consider that through them, the Church truly wishes to give an increasingly clearer revelation of Christ” (Lumen Gentium 46), we further suggest that Sr. Lorraine cease and desist her unauthorized preaching, and clearly state that she brooks no part with witches, ecospirituality, or the evils of Planned Parenthood.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!


Catholic Siskel and Ebert. Thumbs Pending.

In Uncategorized on 28 July, 2010 at 8:50 am

Catholic blogophiles may have seen this link over at National Catholic Register billing two Catholic film critics, David DiCerto and Steven Greydanus, as the Catholic version of Siskel and Ebert Lean Hisskill and Codger Eggbert.  I’m reluctantly optimistic, and here’s why.  We need Catholic film critics.  But at this stage of gross malformation of the American faithful, we need fewer pundits that help moviegoers “make informed judgments about what films are appropriate for them and their families,” and more saints who declare “If you withdraw from theaters and go to church, you have cured the lame foot.”  I am aware that Mr. Greydanus does not like this message.  I do not like it much myself either, because I like movies.  But my likes and dislikes cannot overcome the fact that most of the stuff on the screen these days is not worth risking your soul to see.

Granted, this is a hard message for a film critic to deliver, not in the least because he’s got bills to pay and children who need clothes.  Actively campaigning against watching most (not all) movies at the local cineplex is a Catch-22 for any movie lover, much less a professional critic.  If he’s a failure at such a campaign, he loses credibility as a critic.  If he’s successful, he eventually eliminates the demand for film critics like himself.  The Catholic film critic’s situation is not dissimilar to the dilemma facing the politically conservative bureaucrat in our rapidly expanding Federal government.  Sure, the Constitution only allows the Federal government to own land for the purpose of erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings — but is a man working for the National Park Service going to point this out at the expense of losing his job, or at least calling its very legitimacy into question?

The godly film critic and the honest bureaucrat are caught between Scylla and Charybdis.  I propose to give them a little breathing room by explaining why and how Catholics should avoid going to the movie theatre in most cases, while cultivating a genuine film counterculture at home and in society.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE:  Coincidentally, Joe at Defend Us In Battle has just blogged about the vices of TV and the virtues associated with box set DVDs.  Good show, old boy.

Obedience and the HFC Visitation.

In Uncategorized on 22 July, 2010 at 1:00 am

A few people have chided some Alaskan Catholic bloggers for expressing their opinions about the visitation at Holy Family Cathedral.  Fair enough — the 1st Amendment abides, for the time being.   However, most of these comments have little to do with addressing the issues brought up by the bloggers – such as why a “problem parish” dominates the community life section of the diocesan newspaper –  and instead choose to level personal attacks at the bloggers, doubtless embodying the real Spirit of Vatican II.   A typical combox critic demands blind obedience to the Archbishop or else casts aspersions upon the personal prayer life of the blogger.  This latter tactic ranks as one of the more curious traits among Spirit ‘O’ Vatican II’ers.  Although most of the Kumbaya crowd can’t much give you a straight answer on how to pray, they certainly know how to tell when you are praying wrong, and helpfully offer a vaguely transcendental or Buddhist valediction, e.g. “real conversion begins within” or “you must find yourself before helping others find themselves.”  As if that was how St. Patrick converted the Irish or Our Lady won the hearts of the Aztecs!   In any event, his latter type of attack deserves no further discussion, but the idea of blind obedience really has some merit.  I am speaking now of the type of blind obedience as practiced by Padre Pio when his corrupt Bishop persecuted his ministry, removing all St. Pio’s faculties sans a daily private Mass:

The local bishop, whose reputation was quite bad, had some priests and parishioners sign an accusation of supposed scandal at the monastery of San Giovanni Rotondo, which led to long legal proceedings at the Court in Rome. As a consequence of serious calumnies, severe measures were taken against Padre Pio, by the abused ecclesiastical authority, starting in June 1922. He was forbidden all spiritual correspondence, even with his spiritual directors; he was forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; he was to be transferred to another monastery. In fact, the last two measures could not be enforced due to the outcry of the local population.

You can read more about St. Pio here.  Two things strike me about this episode in St. Pio’s life:

1) St. Pio, like St. Jean Vianney and innumerable other saints, was meekly, cheerfully, and blindly obedient to his bishop; “I only act to obey you, since the Good Lord has made me realize that that is the only thing that pleases Him, and for me the only way to hope for salvation and to sing victory.”   This was because he saw the test before him – should he choose to disobey the bishop for the sake of saving hundreds of souls who made pilgrimage to San Giovanni Rotondo to be confessed by Pio?  Or should he be obedient TO HIS VOWS TAKEN AS A RELIGIOUS, and follow the will of God acting through his lawful ordinary AS FAR AS IT KEPT HIM FROM SIN?  Saint that he was, he chose the latter, and we are all better for it.

2) The outcry of the local population prevented some of the bishop’s orders.  Not because the Church was more democratic in 1920’s Italy than 21st century America (now that’s a funny thought), but because of a long and sacred truth revered by the likes of tyrants and despots such as Nero, and that is this: you can only mess with the mob so long before the mob messes with you.  Put another way, injustice eventually becomes intolerable.

So how does obedience apply here?

It could well be that Fr. Francis and the other Dominicans, with desire to fulfill their vows and in imitation of holy saints such as Padre Pio, will blindly obey the Archbishop up to and over the precipice of the Chilkoot and back down to the Lower 48.  If such a thing were to occur, who could say anything but that we have been in the presence of men who courageously seek holiness, to their self-abasement and in imitation of our Crowned Savior?  That is the sort of blind obedience that bespeaks the theological virtue of faith even more than an Education Center or a renewed catechesis and CCD program.

Fathers have vows too.  And those vows include the rearing of children.  And a father must ensure for the spiritual welfare of their children as they are able.  Therefore, as long as he is able, a father is obligated to tell his Ordinary, and his Ordinary’s chancery minions, and any other interested parties that something is rotten when necessary changes in catechesis are attacked as disrespecting “parish heritage.”  In doing so, a father obeys not only his own baptismal vows, but also those that were laid upon him at his child’s baptism.