Monday, December 30, 2013

The Impossible Reform of Catholic Universities

Over the last few years, we have opened up a plethora of problems that plague the Catholic "Educational" system.  Yeah, that word is in quotes for a real good reason.  "Catholic Education" is in the garbage.  The following article from Catholic Cultures' Dr. Jeff Mirus gives the story.  It can pretty much sum up all we talk about here on Non-Faithful...including our repeated calls for the de-frocking of the teaching arm of the Jesuits...Satans friends at the least.  Read the article and then draw your own conclusions.  Abortion provided at a "Catholic" University.  God have mercy on us all.

Jesus Is Lord!

The Impossible Reform of Catholic Universities

By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio - articles - send a comment) | December 23, 2013 4:10 PM
It comes as no surprise that the faculty of Jesuit-run Santa Clara University has overturned the President’s decision to eliminate abortion coverage from health insurance there. The vote was 215 to 89, and it throws the decision now to the Board of Trustees. Many onlookers will attribute the faculty vote to the particular failure of the Society of Jesus to uphold the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Catholic Church in recent decades. That certainly is part of the problem, but its roots go far deeper into Catholic higher education than that.
In fact, the roots penetrate to an identity crisis which was already being keenly felt in Catholic universities shortly after World War II, and definitely from 1950 onward. The shape of this crisis was outlined in a 1955 article, later a small book, by Fr. John Tracy Ellis, an historian at the Catholic University of America. Ellis argued that Catholic universities had fallen considerably behind their secular counterparts in “important” indicators like Nobel Prize winners on their faculties. In other words, Catholic faculties did not seem to have a proportionate share of internationally-recognized scholars.
This and similar observations proved to be a catalyst for major faculty “reform” by Catholic university leaders throughout the United States (Fr. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, as described in Ralph McInerny’s memoir, I Alone Have Escaped to Tell You (see my review), was an exemplar of this trend). The assumption, to put the matter crudely, was that the Ivy League represented authentic excellence in education, and that Catholic universities had to imitate the faculty-recruitment patterns of the Ivy League if they wanted to compete. No one seems to have considered whether internationally-known scholars were such in part because they tended to be secular voices in a rising culture of secularity, or whether the genuine deficiencies of the Catholic educational experience at that time could have been overcome by a markedly Catholic renewal.
The result was that all major Catholic institutions of higher education rapidly diversified and secularized their faculties over the next generation. And even where sound Catholics remained on these faculties, their institutions gave them a new and very pragmatic vision of what it meant to be a successful scholar—of what sort of distinction was to be both prized and rewarded. This notable shift dovetailed with the public emergence of Modernism among Catholic academics beginning in the 1960s, an endemic failure which came to light as soon as it became culturally advantageous to repudiate traditional understandings of religious faith and morals. It did not take long in most universities for secularized faculty majorities to emerge—a combination of non-Catholics and Catholics who no longer had deep commitments to the Catholic intellectual tradition.
What Can Be Done Is Not Clear
So now we are left with the question of what to do about these faculties. Compared with reforming an administration, which can be done fairly quickly under the right circumstances, reforming a faculty is a long-term process unless one can succeed in mass firings, which under most circumstances is legally impossible. Academic faculties tend to perpetuate themselves, having won considerable authority over hiring. It is at least very difficult for a university administration to reject the candidates selected by faculty search committees. And so the way forward, even for a long term plan of recovery, is not at all clear. In the immediate future, for example, we will see increasing efforts by administrators to move institutions toward authentic Catholic moral standards. And faculties will resist these efforts.
This will be the dominant pattern, I suspect, for the next ten to twenty years. Where a renewed board of trustees puts a decent president in place, and this decent president is determined to initiate reform, we will witness sustained conflict. Over time, the outcomes of the various fights will reveal which strategies work best. As I indicated a few days ago in “Can there be too many good Catholic writers?”, we are blessed with a growing crop of Catholic intellectuals in many different fields who can fill positions as they become available. But positions will come available only slowly for fully Catholic scholars because of the in-built prejudice against orthodoxy and devotion as signs of a parochial, or perhaps even a stunted, mind. What is in fact the key to a superior understanding of all of reality (though admittedly it does not have this effect in every scholar) is actually now regarded as an impediment.
But the Church as a whole must find effective ways to renew her colleges and universities. Such a renewal will place the minds and hearts of countless students within easy reach of truth, students who are now more often led astray, and students in numbers that cannot possibly be reached even by the most admirable of the new and inescapably tiny foundations. I repeat, then, that the vote of the Santa Clara University faculty comes as no surprise. But it does demonstrate the battle before us, which is very likely the next most important battle for Church renewal following the reform of the episcopate and the diocesan seminaries, which has been ongoing over the past twenty years with considerable success.
It will take the power of grace to cut through the intractability of contemporary Catholic universities, which in the main are now organized for spiritual failure. Again, success is not just a matter of finding the right strategy; it is rather a matter of finding the right strategy when it seems that no strategy can possibly work. Precisely because such a reform appears humanly impossible, serious prayer will have to form the very center of the effort. It is, in short, as difficult for a university to be saved as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. But as Our Lord said of every kind of worldliness, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mk 10:27).   

Saturday, December 21, 2013


This hit so hard that it almost flew onto the Blog.  The formatting's not the best, but if it doesn't bring a tear to your eye, you are not alive.
God Bless One and All!
Jesus Is Lord!

Christmas Eve, 1881

Pa never had much compassion for the lazy or those who squandered their
means and then never had enough for the necessities.  But for those who were
genuinely in need, his heart was as big as all outdoors.  It was from him
that I learned the greatest joy in life comes from giving, not from
It was Christmas Eve, 1881.  I was fifteen years old and feeling like the
world had caved in on me because there just hadn't been enough money to buy
me the rifle that I'd wanted for Christmas. 
We did the chores early that night for some reason.  I just figured Pa wanted a little extra time so we could read in the Bible.

After supper was over I took my boots off and stretched out in front of the
fireplace and waited for Pa to get down the old Bible.  I was still feeling
sorry for myself and, to be honest, I wasn't in much of a mood to read

But Pa didn't get the Bible, instead he bundled up again and went outside.  I couldn't figure it out because we had already done all the chores.  I didn't worry about it long though, I was too busy wallowing in self-pity.

Soon Pa came back in.  It was a cold clear night out and there was ice in
his beard.  "Come on, Matt," he said.  "Bundle up good, it's cold out
tonight."  I was really upset then.  Not only wasn't I getting the rifle for
Christmas, now Pa was dragging me out in the cold, and for no earthly reason
that I could see.

We'd already done all the chores, and I couldn't think of anything else that needed doing, especially not on a night like this.  But I knew Pa was not very patient at one dragging one's feet when he'd told them to do something, so I got up and put my boots back on and got my cap, coat, and mittens.
Ma gave me a mysterious smile as I opened the door to leave the house.  Something was up, but I didn't know what.

Outside, I became even more dismayed.  There in front of the house was the
work team, already hitched to the big sled.  Whatever it was we were going
to do wasn't going to be a short, quick, little job.  I could tell.

We never hitched up this sled unless we were going to haul a big load.  Pa was
already up on the seat, reins in hand.  I reluctantly climbed up beside him.
The cold was already biting at me.  I wasn't happy.

When I was on, Pa pulled the sled around the house and stopped in front of
the woodshed.  He got off and I followed.  "I think we'll put on the high
sideboards," he said.  "Here, help me."  The high sideboards! It had been a
bigger job than I wanted to do with just the low sideboards on, but whatever
it was we were going to do would be a lot bigger with the high side boards on.

After we had exchanged the sideboards, Pa went into the woodshed and came
out with an armload of wood - the wood I'd spent all summer hauling down
from the mountain, and then all fall sawing into blocks and splitting.  What
was he doing?  Finally I said something.  "Pa," I asked, "what are you

"You been by the Widow Jensen's lately?" he asked.  The Widow
Jensen lived about two miles down the road.  Her husband had died a year or
so before and left her with three children, the oldest being eight.  Sure,
I'd been by, but so what?

Yeah," I said, "Why?"

"I rode by just today," Pa said.  "Little Jakey was out digging around in
the woodpile trying to find a few chips.  They're out of wood, Matt." That
was all he said and then he turned and went back into the woodshed for
another armload of wood.  I followed him.  We loaded the sled so high that I
began to wonder if the horses would be able to pull it.

Finally, Pa called a halt to our loading, then we went to the smoke house
and Pa took down a big ham and a side of bacon.  He handed them to me and
told me to put them in the sled and wait.  When he returned he was carrying
a sack of flour over his right shoulder and a smaller sack of something in
his left hand.

"What's in the little sack?" I asked. " Shoes, they're out of
shoes.  Little Jakey just had gunny sacks wrapped around his feet when he
was out in the woodpile this morning.  I got the children a little candy
too.  It just wouldn't be Christmas without a little candy."

We rode the two miles to Widow Jensen's pretty much in silence. I tried to
think through what Pa was doing.  We didn't have much by worldly standards.
Of course, we did have a big woodpile, though most of what was left now was
still in the form of logs that I would have to saw into blocks and split before we could use it.

We also had meat and flour, so we could spare that, but I knew we didn't have any money,
so why was Pa buying them shoes and candy?  Really, why was he doing any of this? 
Widow Jensen had closer neighbors than us; it shouldn't have been our concern.

We came in from the blind side of the Jensen house and unloaded the wood as
quietly as possible, then we took the meat and flour and shoes to the door.
We knocked.  The door opened a crack and a timid voice said, "Who is it?"
"Lucas Miles, Ma'am, and my son, Matt... could we come in for a bit?"

Widow Jensen opened the door and let us in.  She had a blanket wrapped
around her shoulders.  The children were wrapped in another and were sitting
in front of the fireplace by a very small fire that hardly gave off any heat
at all.  Widow Jensen fumbled with a match and finally lit the lamp.

"We brought you a few things, Ma'am," Pa said and set down the sack of
flour.  I put the meat on the table.  Then Pa handed her the sack that had
the shoes in it.  She opened it hesitantly and took the shoes out, one pair
at a time.  There was a pair for her and one for each of the children -
sturdy shoes, the best... shoes that would last.

I watched her carefully.  She bit her lower lip to keep it from trembling and then tears
filled her eyes and started running down her cheeks.  She looked up at Pa like she
wanted to say something, but it wouldn't come out.

"We brought a load of wood too, Ma'am," Pa said.  He turned to me and said,
"Matt, go bring in enough to last awhile.  Let's get that fire up to size
and heat this place up."

I wasn't the same person when I went back out to bring in the wood.  I had
a big lump in my throat and as much as I hate to admit it, there were tears
in my eyes too.  In my mind I kept seeing those three kids huddled around
the fireplace and their mother standing there with tears running down her
cheeks with so much gratitude in her heart that she couldn't speak.

My heart swelled within me and a joy that I'd never known before, filled my
soul.  I had given at Christmas many times before, but never when it had
made so much difference.  I could see we were literally saving the lives of
these people.

I soon had the fire blazing and everyone's spirits soared.  The kids
started giggling when Pa handed them each a piece of candy and Widow Jensen
looked on with a smile that probably hadn't crossed her face for a long
time.  She finally turned to us.  "God bless you," she said. "I know the
Lord has sent you.  The children and I have been praying that he would send
one of his angels to spare us."

In spite of myself, the lump returned to my throat and the tears welled up
in my eyes again.  I'd never thought of Pa in those exact terms before, but
after Widow Jensen mentioned it,

I could see that it was probably true.  I was sure that a better man than Pa had never
walked the earth.  I started remembering all the times he had gone out of his way for
Ma and me, and many others.  The list seemed endless as I thought on it.

Pa insisted that everyone try on the shoes before we left.  I was amazed
when they all fit, and I wondered how he had known what sizes to get.  Then
I guessed that if he was on an errand for the Lord, that the Lord would make
sure he got the right sizes.

Tears were running down Widow Jensen's face again when we stood up to
leave.  Pa took each of the kids in his big arms and gave them a hug.  They
clung to him and didn't want us to go.  I could see that they missed their
Pa, and I was glad that I still had mine.

At the door Pa turned to Widow Jensen and said, "The Mrs. wanted me to
invite you and the children over for Christmas dinner tomorrow.  The turkey
will be more than the three of us can eat, and a man can get cantankerous if
he has to eat turkey for too many meals.  We'll be by to get you about
eleven.  It'll be nice to have some little ones around again.  Matt, here,
hasn't been little for quite a spell."  I was the youngest... my two
brothers and two sisters had all married and had moved away.

Widow Jensen nodded and said, "Thank you, Brother Miles.  I don't have to
say, may the Lord bless you, I know for certain that He will."

Out on the sled I felt a warmth that came from deep within and I didn't
even notice the cold. When we had gone a ways, Pa turned to me and said,
"Matt, I want you to know something. Your Ma and me have been tucking a
little money away here and there all year so we could buy that rifle for
you, but we didn't have quite enough.

Then yesterday a man who owed me a little money from years back came by to make
things square.  Your Ma and me were real excited, thinking that now we could get you that
rifle, and I started into town this morning to do just that, but on the way I saw little Jakey
out scratching in the woodpile with his feet wrapped in those gunny sacks and I knew what I had to do.
Son, I spent the money for shoes and a little candy for those children.  I hope you understand."

I understood alright... and my eyes became wet with tears again. I understood very well, and I
was so glad Pa had done it.  Now the rifle seemed very low on my list of priorities. Pa had given me a lot more.  He had given me the look on Widow Jensen's face and the radiant smiles of her
three children.

For the rest of my life, whenever I saw any of the Jensens, or split a block of wood, I remembered,
and remembering brought back that same joy I felt riding home beside Pa that night.  Pa had given me much more than a rifle that night, he had given me the best Christmas of my life. 



This past week at my Parish, our moderator of Eucharistic Ministers sent around a little something that one of our Ministers apparently wrote...I thought it worthy to post so all could see and read it.

It's not long and really sort of sums up THE Blessing of Christmas.

God Bless All and a very Blessed Christmas.
Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

THE Blessing of Christmas

As this hectic “season” soon will culminate in the birth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we need to step back and look at all the wonderful Blessings we have received, not only this year, but throughout our lives.  I know there have been tragedies, disappointments, as well as surprises and joyous things that have happened to us all.  Through it all, we, as Extraordinary Ministers of The Holy Eucharist, have been given a most singular Joy…to offer to our Fellow Parishioners the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

All of us have had something or someone in our lives that we couldn’t really understand, but did the chore or helped the person anyway.  God says that if you “do it for the least of My brethren, you do it for Me.”  As Catholics and Christians, this should be a “Given”.  But, as you all know, “life” gets in the way” as our Pastor has said many times.

This little piece has been written to bring forth the Joy and Love of Christmas that so many seem to lose during the Christmas season of parties, shopping, distractions and frustrations.  God has given us the Most Perfect Gift---His Son…We as Extraordinary Ministers of The Holy Eucharist have the Joy of passing that love on to all our family at our Parish each time we say “The Body of Christ”—“The Blood of Christ”

God Bless each one of you for all you do.  


Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Salvation Army USA Clashes With International Group Over Abortion

In 2011 and 2012, the Salvation Army Commander in Europe had said that they don't agree with all of the teachings of The Catholic Church and even Protestant Churches with regard to Abortion.  Now, it seems that their own people here in the US have taken issue with them.

Here is an article from Life Site News that will give the whole story.  We have permission to re-print part of this article, so as a little teaser....

Salvation Army USA clashes with international group over abortion

January 3, 2012 ( - Leaders of the American branch of the Salvation Army have criticized the decision by the international branch of the church to condone abortion in some cases, saying that the new position does not reflect the beliefs of members in the United States.

revealed that American leaders were infuriated by a Salvation Army’s International Social Justice Commission position paper accepting abortion in the cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal deformity in December.
Major George Hood, chief communications officer for Salvation Army USA, told WND that that the position statement had apparently been developed “through the London office that does not reflect the position we’ve taken in the U.S. on abortion,” and pointed towards the U.S. branch’s own statement, which is unequivocally pro-life."

Please go to the LifeSite News Link  for the rest of the story as it makes for interesting reading.

Merry Christmas to all.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

LIVING THE GOSPEL OF LIFE By Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap.

The following is from Archbishop Charles J. Chaput.  It is the basis for all Catholics and all life on this Planet.  For your eddification:

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Living the Gospel of Life
By Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap.

Exactly 15 years ago this fall, America’s bishops issued a pastoral letter called Living the Gospel of Life. Even today, with the passage of time, this remains no ordinary Church text.  I believed then, and I believe now, that it’s the best document ever issued by the U.S. bishops on the priorities of Catholic engagement in our nation’s public life.  In writing it, the bishops sought to apply Pope John Paul II’s great encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) to the American situation.  The heart of their (the Bishops) statement, paragraph No. 23, stresses that:

“Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life.”

“But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’ — the living house of God — then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right — the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand.  Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.”

This is why the right to life is not merely one among many urgent issues, but rather the foundational one.  It provides the cornerstone for a whole architecture of human dignity.  Nothing has changed in recent months or years in Catholic thinking about the sanctity of human life.  Nor can it.  As America’s bishops have stressed so many times, we have an obligation to work for human dignity at every stage and in every circumstance of human life.  Here in Philadelphia, our Catholic social ministries model that dedication to the poor and disadvantaged in an extraordinary way.

But when we revoke legal protection for unborn children – when we accept the intimate violence abortion inflicts both on women and their unborn children; when we license and sacralize abortion as part of what Pope Francis calls a “throw away culture” — we violate the first and most important human right, the right to life itself.  And once we do that, and then create a system of alibis to justify it, we begin to put every other human and civil right at risk.

October is national Respect Life Month.  It’s a good time to remember the preciousness of all human life, beginning in the womb and continuing through natural death.

There are really two tragedies in every abortion: the killing of an unborn child; and the killing of an opportunity to love.  God made us to be better than that.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

"NonFaithful Catholic College AT IT'S DEMONIC BEST!

Catholic Culture has posted a number of stories over the last few years that lend themselves to our cause of exposing "Catholic in Name Only" schools for what they really are...Heretical institutions that don't adhere to Catholic Teaching.  Here is one of the WORST trying to sound really good.  We are printing the entire article, but for additional news, try the link above.
Jesus Is Lord!

‘Pro-choice’ former surgeon general to lead Catholic college’s school of public health

CWN - October 02, 2013

Regina Benjamin, who served as surgeon general of the United States from November 2009 until July 2013, has been named the Endowed Chair in Public Health Sciences at Xavier University in Louisiana, according to a Catholic News Service report.
In 2009, a White House press spokesman said that Benjamin “supports the president's position on reproductive health issues,” and a McClatchy Newspapers headline characterized her views as “pro-choice.”
Benjamin, who will lead the university’s new Department of Public Health Sciences, is a Xavier alumna.
“She’s not just good -- she's fulfilling St. Katharine Drexel’s mission,” said Sister Grace Mary Flickinger, a Xavier professor who taught Benjamin. “I’m sure St. Katharine Drexel is smiling down on a young woman who is living the mission of Xavier University.”

Sunday, September 22, 2013


Dr. Daniel Boland has written a very succinct explanation of what the Holy Father actually said.  We have decided to post it in its entirety.

Jesus Is Lord!

For the last few days following the Holy Father's published interview with a number of Jesuit magazines around the world. there has been a plethora of screechy headlines and the shocked -- shocked -- rhetoric in many secular media sources. These theologically twisted reports are very similar to the story I heard last week from a diminutive chicken which was running up my street, plucking (in fluent chickenese), "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." 
Clearly, a vast number of secular reporters and editors do not understand that the doctrinal teachings and moral principles of the Catholic Church are not up for grabs, as they would have us believe. The secular press is oftentimes simply ignorant of the facts, sometimes malicious in their distortion of the facts, very often careless about reporting the facts and too often dismissive of the facts and of the proper context and historical sense with which to report a story involving the Church and the Pope. In this instance, the secular press seeks a frothy headline, even if it is entirely misleading and factually incorrect.
If one reads in full that interview with the Pope, one will see that he is merely recalling for us the fundamental message of the Gospel, namely, the love of God for all mankind, as witnessed by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. He is not -- repeat, not -- relaxing the moral standards of issues such as abortion, gay marriage and so forth. He is saying that if we could but comprehend the goodness of God and the power of His love for us, if we had the proper clarity about God's place in our lives, we would be transformed.
Keep in mind that the Pope's customary emphases are on the pastoral aspects of Catholic teaching, but this pastoral side is not being promulgated or achieved at the expense of, nor at the dismissal of, the Church's consistent moral principles. The pastoral standards and the moral standards are like two sides of the same hand. One does not exist without the other. We can emphasize one side at certain times, the other side at other times. Thus, when the Pope emphasizes the pastoral side, he does this not -- not -- at the exclusion of the Church's traditional moral standards. Just as parents sometimes hug their children, yet at other times, chastise them, so also does the Holy Father seek to remind the listening world that beyond the behavioral side of the Church's teachings lies an even deeper, even greater, far more important and energizing reality, i.e., the reality of God's love for us all. That is the first of all realizations which everyone must remember and honor.
Pope Francis is simply reminding us that beneath all the Catholic Church's moral exhortations and all the Church's moral standards of self-restraint lies an even deeper and more fundamental reality, the love of God through Christ for us all. But he does not thereby dismiss the fundamental moral standards which identify Catholic practice. Indeed, just yesterday morning (the day after the release of the interview) he blasted in the strongest possible terms those who promote abortion, and one of his chief Vatican assistants, Cardinal Burke, has renewed his call for Mrs. Pelosi to be denied Holy Communion because of her abortion-promoting behavior.
Thus, the fact that the Pope promotes God's love is not to be taken as a sign that he is a weak-willed, moral pushover with a marshmallow center. This is far from the truth, even if many members of the secular press are unwilling to be factual and, thus, professional and honest in the performance of their vocational responsibilities.
The developing moral standards inherent in the Gospel are real and constant, based on God's love for human beings, directed at elevating human dignity and fiercely aimed at the sacredness of human life itself. Throughout history, these standards have been clarified again and again by the Church as history progresses and we humans struggle to make our way through our lives. These moral standards of the Church are the means by which we, on our side of the relationship, are taught to honor the will of the Father. But even more basic than these moral standards is the fundamental truth -- the most essential fact of the Judeo-Christian lexicon -- of God's love for us. 
Thus, the Pope is reminding us time and again, that the deepest truth we must come to accept in life is the existence of our relationship with God, a relationship begun in Creation and eventually cemented and personalized through Christ. It is an intensely personal, two-way relationship founded, first and foremost, on the love God has for us. It is a relationship which, consequently, asks of us certain parallel indications of our own fidelity to the Father. It is a relationship which has its origins in time, is spelled out explicitly in the Gospels and thence carried forward throughout human history by the intervention of Christ and the ensuing clarifications afforded by the very Church which Christ founded on the command of His Father, and ours.
So the Pope is not dismissing the moral voice of the Church. Rather, he is augmenting its authority, identifying its origins and its reminding us of its deepest source of its authenticity, which is rooted in the love of God for all human beings without reserve, and is reinforced by the teachings of Christ and the work of the Church as time proceeds and mankind seeks its Ultimate Source of peace and understanding.
The problem which the Pope is identifying and pointing out to us is the fact that we humans are the ones who introduce reservations into our side of that relationship by our sins and our selfishness and our readiness to harm one another. But the Church stands ready, like a field hospital in a war zone, to remedy and repair and assuage with simple kindness and persistent care the harm we do to that relationship and to one another.
Over all else, underlying all else, above all else, the Pope reminds us, is the love of God. That is what awaits. That is what it is all about. That is why we are.
And, the Pope is saying, if we could only keep in mind the dimensions and the depth of the love God has for us, we would be less and less prone to sin and forgetfulness, less and less prone to remove ourselves from His love, less and less prone to do harm to others, less and less indifferent to our responsibilities to our children born and unborn. We would, rather, be more and more aware of what He offers us, more and more brought to our senses, more and more driven to live in light and grace and peace as children of the Light, more and more concerned to honor one another by example and by risking, more and more bathed by the consoling Light of God's goodness which He offers us all with unceasing regularity.
The fallacious secular media and the breathlessly erroneous press would have you think that the standards by which the Church brings us closer to God are now out the window, that the Church is now cracking at the edges of it moral identity. This is error of the worst sort. The standards are not changing. Indeed, if change is called for, it is we who must change. The Pope reminds us that we have every reason to do so, for it is the love of God which awaits.
Daniel M. Boland, PhD

Saturday, September 7, 2013


Once again my friends at Sycamore Trust have given me an advance copy of their bulletin.  Since I recently received a request for information on three "CINO" schools, I felt this was quite appropriate right now.

Read this Post and then for more info or to help them with donations go to the link above and see more disgusting crap about the "Foremost "CATHOLIC" institution in the US...Just don't get sick over your keyboard or device...they can be expensive to repair.

Jesus Is Lord!

NOTRE DAME, IN — Alcohol, sex, and the hookup culture are deeply troublesome features of campus environments across the country. Notre Dame is no exception. How Notre Dame deals with these phenomena is important to its Catholic identity. The facts are not encouraging.
Alumni often tell us they like to hear student views. So do we. We bring you now what Bob Burkett (’13), last year’s editor-in-chief of The Irish Rover and recipient of the Sycamore student award, had to say at our June annual breakfast.
You can read his address here, but it is brief and we hope you will watch it here. We cannot do all of it justice in this bulletin.
Bob's opening was arresting, to put it conservatively:
I wondered what my first weekend as a college student would be like here, surrounded by people with the same interests, background, and of course Catholic faith as me….I was appalled when I saw the immorality of the activities going on around me. It seemed that Our Lady’s University was really no different on the weekends than any other college I had ever head about….I felt like I had been tricked.
While Bob went on to identify “parts of Notre Dame’s Catholicism that are truly exceptional” and said he “grew significantly as an individual” in consequence, he judged the “religion” of a great many students to reflect what the distinguished Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith calls “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” the pervasive “religion” of today’s youth.
Students “are interested in religion insofar as it makes them feel happy and good,” Bob said. “[W]e are free to do whatever we would like insofar as no one else is harmed,” with “’harm’ largely limited to physical violence.”
This “allows ‘perfectly moral teenagers’ to engage in alcohol, drugs, and sexual promiscuity.”
“My biggest fear,” Bob said, “is that this mentality of cafeteria Catholicism…has run amok at Notre Dame.”
But, one might object, Notre Dame has to work with what it gets, and what it gets are students many of whom reflect the debased morality of today’s dominant secular culture. Surely four years at Notre Dame would change them, right?
Well, yes, but not in the way one would hope and expect.
Certainly many students enter Notre Dame firm in their faith and become ever more committed to Church ethical teachings. We have come to know many of them. They are crucially important to the Catholic character of the university.
But this is not true of the student population as a whole. A four-year study by the respected Higher Education Research Institute of a Notre Dame class disclosed that, as a group, the class was less attached to Church teachings on sexuality and abortion when it left than when it entered.
Specifically, the proportion of the class who saw nothing wrong with premarital sex if the parties “really like each other” rose from 21% to 36% — an increase of 71%!
With more than a third of the graduates of the premier Catholic university in the country believing that sex without marriage is perfectly fine, no wonder marriage is in deep trouble.
Then there is the excessive drinking and the alcohol-fueled hook-up culture that are epidemic in colleges and universities and have taken hold at Notre Dame as well.
The administration acknowledges that “[s]tatistically the drinking culture at Notre Dame is not much different than most colleges across the nation,” with 20% of the students regular, and another 60% occasional, abusers.
There are no data showing the reach of the “hookup culture” or fornication among students “who like one another,” though there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. The student newspaper The Observer, for example, runs articles on the search by lesbians and homosexuals for sexual partners; the Scholastic published a Notre Dame sociologist’s description of the benefits of premarital sex under the heading "Don't Wait" and regularly features accounts of supposedly funny stories of students’ drunken sexual encounters; a senior writes in The Notre Dame Magazine, “Our romantic advances fall into the categories of ‘hookup’ or ‘husband’….[W]e live in the land of books and beer….“
Then there are the blog accounts of drinking and partying at Notre Dame on sites like College Confidential and jarringly crude entries on a new Notre Dame Confessions Facebook site that the Observer reports has “taken over” the campus. There is more, but this is enough. It is a commonplace that there is a good deal of alcohol abuse and illicit sex at Notre Dame. The question is not precisely how much or whether it is more or less than at other schools, but rather what the school is doing about it as a Catholic university.
The answer is “nothing” in the classroom, except for those who seek it. There is no longer a required course in moral theology, nor even a moral theology unit in any required course.
And this against the background of the pervasive religious illiteracy of entering students. In their comprehensive study, The Hook-Up Culture on Catholic Campuses (Center for Advancement of Higher Education, Cardinal Newman Society), Anne Hendershott and Nicholas Dunn cite the work of Christian Smith of Notre Dame and Melinda Denton in observing, “Many Catholic students seem to arrive on Catholic college campuses with little idea about what the Church teaches about sexual morality.”
To be sure, in its “Guide to Student Life,” the university says it “embraces” the Church’s teaching on sexual issues. But attend carefully to how it says it:
The University embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage. Consequently, students who engage in sexual union outside of marriage may be subject to referral to the University Conduct Process.
This is both incoherent and a toothless and misleading description of the Church’s teaching. What’s wrong with something just because it’s not “genuine” or “complete”? Why does it merit punishment? Those are descriptive terms, not normative.
Here’s the Church’s teaching in its words rather than the university’s: “Fornication” is a “sin gravely contrary to chastity.” (Paragraph 2396, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Notre Dame’s abandonment of organized and comprehensive instruction in the Church’s ethical teachings is our central concern, since both that fact and its relationship to the school’s Catholic identity are clear. We pass by disciplinary practices, since neither we nor anyone else outside the administration can get at the facts. And as to the policies in the residence halls, we cannot speak with confidence in any detail, and so we will say only what we are sure no one would dispute, namely, that there is a good deal of winking and averting of eyes, that women’s halls are better than men’s on the whole, and that some men’s halls (Morrisey Manor as a prime example) are better than others.
There are positives, to be sure. Most significantly, the administration deserves credit for sticking with single sex dormitories and parietals as other schools scrap them.
Still, these are external deterrents good for a limited time and in a limited place only. They are irrelevant to off-campus students and activities, they disappear upon graduation, and they bear only remotely on Notre Dame’s role in instructing students in the Church’s teachings so as to carry them through life.
The most heartening development has come from some of the students. While Hendershott and Dunn cited an especially notable police raid on a large Notre Dame party to illustrate the student drinking scene, they also highlighted the annual Edith Stein conference at Notre Dame as an example of students striking back at the culture of sexual license celebrated in The Vagina Monologues, another student-initiated production playing at Notre Dame when the Edith Stein conference was launched. As readers of our bulletins know, Sycamore is a strong supporter of the Edith Stein conference. We will say more about it later.
But, as Henderson and Dunn observe, “Such small groups of students…cannot change the culture alone….They need help creating moral communities in which Church teachings on sexual morality are understood and cherished.”
As to that, we yield the last word to Father Mark Poorman, C.S.C., former long-time Notre Dame Vice President for Student Affairs, who summarized the situation in a moment of praiseworthy candor several years ago during an Alumni Weekend panel discussion:
We really need to do a whole lot more with regard to moral formation and ethical training and reasoning.

Thursday, April 11, 2013


The following is a letter from Dr. Dan Boland to the President of McQuaid Jesuit High School in New York.  Read it and Weap...THEN, bombard The Vatican with e-mails and letters demanding the removal of this "catholic school" from the Catholic Church.  These schools should all be eviscerated for their lack of Catholic Teaching.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Wednesday, April 10, 2013
My Dear Father Salmon:
I write with fraternal concern about your recent open letter validating the choice of two members of your high school’s Junior Class to attend the Junior Prom as gay dating partners. Forgive my candor if need be -- but I must speak to you frankly as a Catholic and as an experienced psychologist, for you need to hear what I have to say. I strongly believe your validation of these young men’s behavior is a significant mistake both from the doctrinal and moral perspective of the Church’s teaching about sexuality and from a psychological point of view.  
I also believe you seriously mis-use the Holy Father’s comments in your open letter by gravely distorting both his intent and the Church’s principles of pastoral concern for homosexuals. Your invocation of the Pope’s words as support for your approval is inexcusably wrong-headed and utterly misguided. It is a rationalization by which you seek to justify your actions. As a lifelong Catholic, I find this indefensible. As a psychologist for more than fifty years who has worked with countless young people, I know it is a grave mistake to give teenagers the morally wrong, psychologically harmful and medically dangerous message that living the gay lifestyle is fine with you and, by distortion, with the Holy Father. The long-term outcomes of your message are frightening.
Your message of approval is also burdened with the slippery illogic of secularist sensitivity training and a romanticized ethic. Anyone in your position of Catholic authority and educational influence should realize that it is the objective moral order -– not the individual’s subjective urges and emotional wants -- to which the Church and her ministers must attend. It is to the moral principles, educational facts and pastoral realities of this issue with these youngsters -- and their parents -- that you and your Jesuit colleagues should attend as pastors of souls and Catholic intellectuals. Even if parents support the gay urges of their sons, your mandate is still clear.
There is a plethora of psycho-socio, cultural and biological research which concludes that homosexuality is not -- repeat not  -- biologically fixed. Indeed, the process of psycho-sexual identity in young people today is an evolving and very complex phenomenon, often extending well into adult years. Those of you who work daily with youth should respect the fact that our youngsters are especially vulnerable 1) to today’s gay-promoting cultural distortions, 2) to the massive propaganda coming from the gay community and the media, 3) to the seductive allure of homosexual lies, 4) to the gay anti-authoritarian messages which appeal to the young, and 5) even to the sickeningly politicized support of gays coming from the White House. You certainly realize how vulnerable your students are to the morass of sexual misinformation and distortion which abound in society. Why you and your Jesuit colleagues would choose in any way  -- especially under the fa├žades of “inclusion” and false charity -- to give personal credence to such deceptions exceeds understanding.
Given all this, it is quite disturbing that you would give your personal stamp of approval to the grimly over-romanticized desires of hormonally-active high school Juniors who think being gay is their determined condition. Rather than standing with the Church as a mature adult defender of hope, you legitimize the unsavory desires of two immature teenagers. Your misleading actions are another wound in the on-going collapse of Catholic moral leadership. God help us if such cooperation with our sick culture is the final message Catholic clergy choose to send America. Thank you for reading this. I send my prayers for your future decisions.

Daniel M. Boland, Ph. D.

Friday, March 22, 2013


They just can't seem to quit.  First they try to hide behind a program for Mary and now THIS!!!
And during Lent to boot!!!  Are they stupid enough to think they are still "Catholic"?

Here is the article from The Cardinal Newman Society in it's entirety from the Department known as Catholic Education Daily.

My previous exposures, HERE, of U of Dayton seem to be a little tame compared to this!  Well, maybe... as I re-read some of the other Data.  They are just as bad as the Jesuit Colleges...No aspersions on Pope Francis.  Hopefully he will be able to straighten out that wayward Order.

The Article.

University of Dayton Sponsors Homosexual-Themed Musical that Mocks the Church

Tonight, the University of Dayton Theater Program kicks off its six-performance run of the homosexual-themed pop-rock opera "bare." The musical focuses on the relationship between two homosexual high school students and their struggles at a Catholic boarding school. The play runs in the University of Dayton's Boll Theatre in Kennedy Union, March 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23.
PopsterThe play by Jon Hartmere, Jr. and Damon Intrabartolo debuted in Los Angeles in 2000, and has been performed at fringe festivals across the country. As noted in the University of Dayton promotional poster, the musical contains adult language and content.
The play mocks the Church. It features scenes of males kissing each other, a vision of a psuedo-Virgin Mary encouraging a boy to "come out," and a scene mocking the Sacrament of Confession.
While the University of Dayton is staging the original version of the play, a revival version was recently staged off-Broadway.
According to Wikipedia, one “reason to stage a [2012-2013 off-Broadway revival] of 'bare' included…the movement to legalize gay marriage.”
The play’s producers have partnered with organizations supporting homosexual rights, including The Tyler Clementi Foundation, Athlete Ally, and Human Rights Campaign. A series of talkOUTS held after the performances have included representatives from the Matthew Shepard Foundation, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Empire State Pride Agenda, and the Point Foundation.
The producers, creative team, and cast have also actively supported the NOH8 Campaign to fight California’s Proposition 8 and promote homosexual marriage.
Catholic Education Daily is an online publication of The Cardinal Newman Society. Click here for email updates and free online membership with The Cardinal Newman Society.

If there was EVER a valid reason to STRIP the Catholic Identity from The University of Dayton, THIS WOULD BE IT!!!

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M 

Monday, March 11, 2013

THE "FALL" OF A "Catholic In Name Only" COLLEGE

A follower has decided to send a letter to their Alma Mater...this letter epitomizes EXACTLY the reason we started this blog.  In fact, This Blog has shown just how really bad this school is in more than one Posting.  However, this letter truly excoriates the lack of Catholicism at this so called "catholic institution".  (small letters for a reason).  We have left the person's name out for obvious reasons, but have permission to print the letter.  And we fully AGREE with the conclusions and statements made within the piece.

Read it and weep for "catholic education".

Marywood University
ATTN:  Michele Shea Zabriski
Office of University Advancement
2300 Adams Ave
Scranton, PA  18509-1598

March 7, 2013

Dear Ms. Zabriski,

      I have received your request for a donation to Marywood University in the amount of $25.00.  First, let me mention that I am faithful to the Catholic Church and all She teaches.   Please understand that while I have two degrees from Marywood (Psychology) and am very happy with the educational aspects of the facility, regrettably, I am not able to donate. 

    Over the years, I have come to question Marywood’s apparent disconnect with the Traditions of the Catholic Church.  I feel that the University has a very troubling record when it comes to the standards required of a Catholic institution.  In addition, I am afraid that it has become apparent to the Catholic community that there are serious breaches of Faith within the staff at Marywood, and the understanding that the University espouses a core disregard for the Catholic Church and Her teachings.  I have reached this conclusion with great pain and at times astonishment.

      I take no joy in its revelation.  Because I am aware that there are many like me, I would like to share our trepidation with Marywood, and the reasons for our unwillingness to further fund the facility.

     Perhaps our first indication that Marywood was willing to publically embarrass the Church and Faithful Catholics, was the presentation by your prominent staff member, Sr. Margaret Gannon who was interviewed on a St. Patrick’s Day outside the Radisson Hotel in Scranton. She was pictured holding a Pro-Abortion candidate’s sign. She explained enthusiastically why voters should vote for this Anti-Life candidate. Much to our dismay, she was identified as Sister Margaret Gannon, I.H.M., Marywood University. Please consider the following:

·        Sister Margaret Gannon was also very openly a member of Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council. Evidently, she only left at the insistence of the then Bishop of Scranton.
·        While driving through the campus of Marywood at the time of the pending presidential election, it was evident to all who passed that the Pro-Abortion candidate’s posters were prominent in the Sisters’ residence which included that of Sister Gannon.
·        Sister. Gannon was also instrumental in bringing in Doug Kmiec to Marywood where he encouraged the participants to vote for the Democratic candidate in spite of the fact that he was very Pro-Abortion and was running against a Pro-Life candidate.  At that venue,  Mr. Kmiec was asked how he could reconcile this fact. He replied that he disagreed with  Mr. Obama on abortion but felt he could support him on other issues. He also said that when Mr. Obama is elected he (Mr. Kmiec) will get him to change his views and Mr. Obama will become Pro-Life.
     To my knowledge, a balanced, counter argument to that of Mr. Kmiec’s was never presented for the Pro-Life alternative to the Democratic candidate.  In addition, to date, Mr. Kmiec’s plan has not worked out so well, and many Catholic students were left with the scandalous impression that voting Pro-Abortion is admirable.  Are there plans to have a return visit by Mr. Kmiec to let the student body know what went wrong with his vision?
·        One of the most scandalous and disobedient actions by Sister Gannon was her appearance on a panel held at St. John’s School in Honesdale, where she again pressed the Democratic Pro-Abortion candidate’s agenda in a public forum. According to the structure for the forum, there were to be two participants for each candidate.  Sister Gannon once again represented the Pro-Abortion candidate.  This time she did so against the wishes of the then Bishop of the Scranton Diocese.  Bishop Martino publicly asked her to represent her Religion instead of her politics to no avail.  The result was to incite scandal and humiliation for the Faithful Catholics who were present which incidentally included the Bishop. The following media coverage further embarrassed and contributed to the great scandal which ensued.
·        However, the worst degradation involving Marywood University and Sister Gannon was a full page letter (ad) in the Scranton Times paper inferring that people in this area must vote for the Pro-Abortion candidate or they are racists.  This letter was proudly signed by Sister Gannon and other “Catholics” in the area, once again causing scandal and leaving the Faithful Catholics one more time explaining why a Catholic University was backing a Pro-Abortion presidential candidate.  Her message was clear:  Vote Obama or you are participating in racism.  Astonishing!
     While Sister Gannon has every right to her opinion on political matters, inserting herself into the heart and soul of a Pro-Abortion presidential candidate’s election should not be in the forefront of a representative of the Catholic Church.  These conflicting positions in life are always mutually exclusive.  In the event an employee of the Catholic Church has lost her way, it is the University’s responsibility to correct the situation.  This was never done; in fact Sister Gannon’s activities where loudly lauded by Marywood.  

·        Your current President, Sister Anne Munley, also presents problems with Faithful Catholics as she has held leadership roles in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and continues on its national Board of Directors today.  She is a past-president of LCWR and therefore it is safe to conclude that she is in agreement with the six major points where the LCWR has splintered from the Catholic Church:
1.      A diminution of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration.
2.      The promotion of destructive teachings such as Sister Laure Brink’s work which suggests that Religious should move beyond the Church and even Jesus.
3.      The protesting by the organization of the Holy See’s actions regarding reasons that women priestesses will never be sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
4.      Disparaging remarks from LCWR regarding doctrines concerning patriarchy, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity.
5.      LCWR’s silence on matters of right to life, abortion, euthanasia, and the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality.
6.      Public disagreement with the Bishops.
These tenants were so distressing that they prompted a “Vatican Visitation” which mentions several other facts about the organization.
·        Under Sister Anne Manley’s presidency at the University, a “Liturgical Dance Team” was allowed to perform at St. Peter’s Cathedral, despite condemnation from several local pastors and many vocal Faithful Catholics.  The dancers, made up entirely of Sisters from Marywood, danced with scarves and in costume, but were thankfully not permitted to perform during Mass.  Once again, Faithful Catholics were left to explain this bizarre occurrence.  Incidentally, the name of the group is inane since American Catholics are never allowed to dance during Mass (Liturgy).  One wonders why this name was chosen. Related pictures here   http/://
·        Until recently, Marywood University boasted a relationship with Sister Theresa Kane, I.H.M. (links to Marywood and Sister Kane have recently been removed).  Sister Kane is a past-President of  LCWR and who is best remembered for her confrontation with                      Pope John Paul II in a scathing address about women’s ordination during his American visit in 1979  
·        Marywood University was also disciplined by the Bishop of the Diocese of Scranton for posting in its home page a listing of “things to take” which blatantly included contraception.
     Locally, we see much “social justice” information sponsored by Marywood, but what we are missing is solid, Catholic teaching and adherence to Her Traditions.  Adult education on the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell, or even a basic course on the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be impressive.  In addition, we can’t reconcile that fact that there are important issues for which Marywood is noticeably absent.  For example, Marywood University is never found speaking on behalf of the unborn, and has never condemned contraception. 
     With the exceptions of Sister Gilmary and Sister Romayne, the sisters of Marywood are never seen praying outside Planned Parenthood in Scranton, although a Rosary is said each Friday at the same prescribed time.  Marywood is never present at the annual Prayer Breakfast or for any function for Pennsylvanians for Human Life. You will never find a Marywood sister (again, with the exception of Sister Gilmary and Sister Romayne) including themselves in the March on Washington, or (with one exception), the Scranton March for Life for that matter.  We have never seen a sister from Marywood praying outside the abortion clinic in Bethlehem, and at Marywood University, you will never see Michael Voris, or any other Faithful Catholic courageous enough to talk about the Catholic abuses we see on a regular basis.

     On a more personal note, throughout the years, Marywood has refused to live up to the Catholic heritage that so many hopeful students had anticipated-I included.  Shortly after admission to Marywood’s undergraduate Psychology Department, the then Chair of the  Department informed me that she was “basically” Pro-Life after learning that I was supportive of the movement since the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision.  She said this reluctantly and with apparent disapproval.   This Chair was a nun, so my shock was evident.  I received no answer from her when I remarked, “well I would hope so!”  Two weeks later I was informed that I would have a new mentor.  I suspect this was the best course of action-at least for me. 

     In the weeks and years to come, I remain optimistic that Marywood University will be brought to terms regarding what is appropriate and what is not.  Should that not come to pass, I am afraid that one day soon Marywood may be separated from its Catholic affiliation.  I pray every day for Marywood and the other “Catholic” universities across the country and the other three who are closer.

     Please understand, I mean no malice toward you or the University.  I have a firm believe that silence on the part of Faithful Catholics has assisted Marywood’s departure from Catholicism.  For my part in this, I am attempting to mitigate my transgressions.  My Catholic Faith means absolutely everything to me.  As such I send you my fervent hopes and prayers for Marywood along with this letter.

This is what "Catholic In Name Only" means.  My opinion, as stated before about Kings College, University of Scranton,(Jesuit pro-gay marriage and abortion) and Misericordia (actually misery would be a better name) are the other three about which the letter spoke.  They are all the same or worse than Marywood.

Pray for them as they REALLY need it.

Jesus Is Lord!!