St. James Catholic Church 1st Saturday Vigil Latin Novus Ordo Masses Have Resumed!!!!!

St. James Catholic Church 1st Saturday Vigil Latin Novus Ordo Masses Have Resumed!!!!! Information is HERE. Next offering: Saturday, June 4, 2016 (Sunday Liturgy - 10th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Thursday, 18 August 2016

Brief Update

Hello Everyone,

No I haven't given up on Servimus just yet. Life sometimes takes over and you have no time for other side activities, especially when you are married like me. I just recently came back from my honeymoon with my wife, and well between packing and going and coming back, I didn't have a lot of time to blog.

I do have a couple of things down the road. First, I was working on a post on a now stale subject, but I'll release it anyways in future. That is, about the Ad Orientem issue when Cardinal Sarah shook the Church and got a swift kick from Pope Francis, other misguided clerics, and the PR machine of the Vatican Press over the issue. I'll put in my two cents.

Secondly, I do want to briefly cover my wedding after these long few months. It won't be a huge post, but it will just be a small necessary posting.

Anyways, just letting you know I'm still here. Pax. Julian.

Sunday, 17 July 2016

Mark, Buddy, You Got Real Pals and Siblings in Christ Who Get You and Have Seen the Truth

Hello Everyone, but specifically, Mark Shea,

The Church has been a trying time for many of us, especially with the Francis Papacy. Every off the cuff statement and interview he does with reporters can lead to a new fiasco, and another round of Satan's bile being thrown at the Holy Father by Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists of all people.

Sadly, even the more centralist "orthodox" people, are committing slander and calumny and sin, all in the name of religious purity and in being the Church's self-appointed liturgical and moral police officers. In reality, these "I'm with Stupid" (I.W.S.) Catholics, to coin the phrase, from blogger David Wanat at "If I Might Interject," are committing the same sins and violation of the 2nd Commandment, like their Radical Traditionalist brethen, despite not being Latin Mass afficionados. Their "sacred cow"/idols might not be the Latin Mass/liturgy, but it could be something like abortion, euthanasia, homosexual issues, women's issues, etc. They defend the issue in a manner so zealously with the writings of the Church, they become modern day Pharisees, often involving the slagging and contempt of Pope Francis. Their language is passive-aggressive, and the underlying meaning of it is truly hatred and disgust for the Holy Father.

However, the Holy Father is not the only target of their moral and/or liturgical purism. They target anyone who attacks their rigorist standards of what they think the Church "teaches" as its authority and final words on matters. I myself have been attacked online and in person, and even stalked at a parish, for daring to fight against these people's demands and desires.

Unfortunately, their actions have consequences, spiritually and mentally, on their audiences, such as despair, inordinate anger, etc. and they are accessories to the sins of their affected audience. One good veteran and Catholic family man has been afflicted, and he needs our support.

A good blogger I have admired throughout the years since I've entered the fray, Mark Shea of Catholic Patheos web portal, a convert to the Church, has written numerous books, and produced numerous articles and work for North America's leading Catholic apologetics apostolate, Catholic Answers. In his spare time, he blogs at "Catholic and Enjoying It!", though he did recently break from the blog for personal reasons. Now he's back in action, though someone, a good friend, decided to employ proper fraternal correction of him, as it seems Mark, to this friend, has gone past his usual defining snarkiness that makes Mark a fun Catholic blogger to read.

Personally, I haven't met Mark in Person. I do hope he comes to Canada again, to my Archdiocese of Toronto, where one day I will meet him. However, I have had some correspondence with him, being in a similar "blogger's circle" as it were (kinda like the analogy of cliques in high school lunch rooms) and despite the low popularity and power that my Servimus Blog yields, Mark has been kind and gracious enough to link to my blog a couple of times for when I've poured out my soul and stated things of importance.

The post where this happened, and Mark's reply, is here:

Mark decides to open up about this heart to heart discussion, revealing what has happened to him spiritually over the years. One of the biggest things spiritually that has happened is some despair, laced with disillusionment into thinking that the readers he was once evangelizing to, have revealed their true and darkest sides to him. Some of this also revolves around the Francis Papacy and this current 2016 election in the United States of America, with Catholics, surprisingly, defending narcissist :

"The past 15 years have been one long slow disillusionment which went into high gear with the election of Francis and the poisonous reaction of that whole subculture against him ... I’ve watched for *years* while the people who once were eager to hear the gospel have morphed into a people eager to battle the Church every time she says something they don’t like, who use the lamest sophistries to do it, and who consistently use the unborn as human shields and fig leaves for that project.... Times this by literally thousands of encounters. It grinds you down. You lose patience and you lose hope. These are the people you took to be the faithful remnant of the Church and it turns out they are consistently fighting the Church and regard the Magisterium as a threat–especially Francis. Meanwhile, I regard him as a gift and am heartsick at the warfare–open and naked, as well as subterranean and passive (like a tree burning at the roots)–that comes from one sector of the Church and one only: the people I trusted as “faithful Catholics”..."

Heartbreaking indeed! This is exactly like the betrayal of Judas Iscariot at the Passion of Jesus Christ, who turned his back on the Lord and turned him over to be crucified. Mark here is like Mary, sadly watching his Son be mocked, tortured, hurt, and rejected and abandoned by the people who were once his closest friends and allies. Surely, haven't you had a moment in your life, even in your childhood, when a friend you once had, dumped you because he say, found someone else they thought was better, or joined a clique and embraced their "lifestyle" to the point it had to exclude you cause you are against their new "friends?" That here, is exactly what Mark Shea is experiencing.

The hypocrisy and sins of the I.W.S. crowds and their self-serving need for hearing they are the Holy Remnant of Jesus' "TRUE" Church, and not the modernist one passing for it today, is the high source of frustration for Mark's writing and correspondence in the hopes at evangelizing, and counselling the (willfully) ignorant:

" ...  I find myself in the bizarre position of meeting Lefties who are genuinely interested in hearing what the Church has to say, all while having to explain to Righties that this does not make me ritually unclean for consorting with them in order to evangelize them .... They now seek a Fortress in which to remain safe from a world they fear while Francis has left the Fortress, flung open the door and is proclaim the joy of the gospel to the very people the subculture would pour boiling oil on before they let them into the Church.  It’s not merely that they think he evangelizes badly.  It that they want him to stop evangelizing lest riff raff get in and make life complicated .... I no longer felt as though I had an audience who wanted to hear the Church’s teaching in fullness. They wanted to hear me tell them they are awesome and righteous and the Remnant of the Faithful and they wanted to hear me tell them liberals and CINOs are the enemy, including Francis. "

And because Mark Shea refused to fall off the narrow path on the right side of the road to the gate of heaven, the very people who enjoyed his blog, have become his worst enemies, just like the Jewish people from Palm Sunday, whom by Good Friday were now his hecklers and detractors.

The prideful and wicked RMTs and I.W.S., rarely admit to their sins and when they do, still do it in a prideful manner with the utmost unrepentance and mockery of their opponents. Mark, in a humble, true, mea culpa, has admitted that he has allowed such worries of the world, the flesh, and the Devil, affect him spiritually and in his writing, as correctly pointed out by the concerned friend:

"It has affected my writing, I know. I have felt more and more blocked and frustrated. More and more aware of how profoundly out of step I am with my peers. And no small part of that is due to the fact that there are deep mental and social “structures of sin”, as the Church calls them, that most on the right are completely unaware of. That’s why they see Francis as a threat and it is excruciatingly difficult for them to understand what he means on even the simplest points .... None of this is to try to justify my sins of anger. They are real and I keep going back to the sacrament for them (just went again today). It’s more to say, “Have mercy on me, a sinner.” I don’t *like* myself very much these days. I wish I was a better man, but I’m just not. I keep praying for daylight and trusting that it will come. I think I got a piece of it yesterday and so will explore in that direction.


If there is anything I can say, it's that Mark deserves our prayers and support. People who are more devout in their faith, should not be dividing their Brother and Sisters of Christ to ruin and sin. They should not be hurting and re-crucifying our Lord, yet they do. Even the best of our apologists and defenders, like Mark, are being hurt and wounded by these new allies and actors of the Devil's works. AND THEY TRULY DON'T DESERVE IT. NO ONE DESERVED TO BE HATED IN THIS WAY. 

Friends, I am happy that Mark does his service. I empathize with him. Despite his recent slump, he is truly one of the best faces out there for our Faith, warts and all, who is genuinely acting out his Faith.

Mark, let it be known that there still a few genuine "Orthodox," Traditionalist, even Latin Mass loving (ok, maybe just ONE or Two of us), Catholics who know you are practicing the truth of Jesus and have not fallen to the demons of your accusers. We care, and support you, and will continue to do so. You DO have online friends, and you can count me as one of them.

Friends, and true Catholics, please Give Mark your support and a shout, and your prayers.

Deo Gratias, and Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin.

Friday, 15 July 2016

Report: High Latin Mass/Missa Cantata at Mary Lake Shrine of the Augustinian Fathers in King City, ON, Saturday June 11, 2016


Hello Everyone,

I'll admit in light of my married life, as well as focusing on my major work whereby I had to call out a professor of OLSWA for his attack on Jean Vanier, (Part I, and Part II) this is long overdue, and I haven't had a chance to do this until now.

A month and a half ago, the Mary Lake Shrine in King City, Ontario, one of the parishes blessed with being a site of the Doors of Mercy of the Extraordinary Jubilee Year, held a beautiful and reverent Missa Cantata. The celebrant was none other than our Archdiocese's Latin Mass Chaplain, Fr. Steven Szakaczki, currently residing at St. Lawrence the Martyr Scarborough. I refer you to this link, that I had for promoting the Mass for some brief information about the Shrine and the Fathers' charism, but how blessed was the Archdiocese that these fine brothers would allow a Latin Mass. It turns out that this is their 2nd or 3rd year in a row that they have done an annual offering at the shrine of the Latin Mass, and for a yearly offering, they are happy to oblige.

I personally was going to attend with my best friend in faith, as this Mass was entirely independent of any specific organization, and being celebrated by Fr. Steven at a magnificent place. Initially, I had also inquired about serving. At that time, numbers seemed ok, but I was asked to be on "standby" later, in case of increasing the level to a Cantata with incense.

It turns out that, we were part of the Lord's plan, as a last minute change of plans necessitated me robing up and serving. We also had another young man join us who had served some other Latin Masses in the Archdiocese that my friend knew, and an old ally from our last St. Patrick's offering, just happened to show up, who was originally going to be in the pews. Thankfully, we had an extra cassock on hand and I lent my spare, cotton surplice, to him that I keep with me. With four servers, we had enough for incense and elevation to a Missa Cantata! Since none of us had the experience to do the Master of Ceremonies role, we went with two acolytes, a thurifer, and a crucifer.

Overall, we were able to give each other quick rundowns for our roles and I had crammed a little thurifer reading on the Missa Cantata just in case. For the most part, the serving went well, although without an MC, it was a bit challenging to know cuing of parts and such. The four of us are not part of an established Latin Mass program/parish so there's where the challenged lay. I also had a relative lengthy distance for the midpoint to walk for a coal exchange for the thurible, as the sacristy was near the main altar, and to get to that, you had to exit the back of the chapel, out to behind the main altar. Thank goodness Fr. Steven is a master of the Latin Mass! He led us fantastically in the Mass, and we were able to carry out a beautiful Missa Cantata.

However, a Mass isn't just priest and servers alone. I also give mention to the choir and the crowd. The choir was a small size schola, a combination of some of the Augustinian Fathers including the pastor/"prior" of the parish, as well as a couple of laypeople with an interest in Gregorian Chant and singing. Considering this Mass is held annually, the schola possessed considerable talent! They had clearly prepared well for this Mass and it showed. As for the laity, I was impressed! The Eucharistic chapel of Mary Lake, I'd estimate, could seat about 150-180 people in the pews. For this offering of the Latin Mass, the chapel was full! Of those in attendance, I saw a mix of people of varying age, but also a number of young people too. Even a couple of old friends of mine from Aurora showed up, and two people from my current Novus Ordo parish I never expected! All in all, it was a great showing that we could pack the chapel full, with standing room only!

As per my usual reporting, here are photos of the altar set up to celebrate the Extraordinary Form:

The chapel of the Mary Lake Shrine, which is usually open for perpetual adoration. The tabernacle ... is to the right of the altar. Yeah, it's construction is "modern." 

This is the altar close up, before the Mass began, and before a couple more items were added. 

The credence table for the Mass. 

These are two of the altar cards that are in the sacristy after Mass, that were on the altar. Interestingly, these are the altar cards of the Mary Lake Shrine!!! I, nor Fr. Steven, had to supply the cards this time around! See the picture above for the center altar card. 

Also, traditionally in my reports, I recapitulate the homily from the Latin Mass, as a "snippet" of interest. Unfortunately, because of my thurifer duties, and the length of time that has passed since the Mass in June, I have forgotten most of it. What I can remember is the following, with my own embellishment to explain the points made by Fr. Steven:

  • The central topics/themes of the Homily were: The forgotten other half of Mercy, which is justice; The Blessed Virgin Mary; Humility and how the B.V.M. exhibits this humility; the Devil and how he has a total lack of humility. 
  • On Mercy and justice, Fr. opened up his homily with the theme of Mercy. He likely started with this because this was a Doors of Mercy parish with a Holy Door in the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. He commented on how there are two parts to the Lord's Mercy, and that the virtue of justice is its second component, going hand in hand with Mercy.
  • Unfortunately, there is a current trend in our society that is rapidly rising both in our world and in our Church. Father than began to explain how both mercy and virtue must be balanced, and the errors/sins we make when we pursue each too far in their extremes. 
  • With mercy, it is good and well to forgive those of their faults and transgressions, but we err and overemphasize mercy to the point that we allow the person to not correct their mistakes or work at turning away from their sins, and we actually harm them, giving them license to remain stagnant in their personal and spiritual development.
  • Father Steven also commented on the other part of the combination of mercy/justice, that we as humans, err in also overemphasizing justice to the point where we lack mercy. When something or someone wrongs us, our instincts are to lash out and punish the source of offence and injustice. Part of that is a desire of revenge or to serve "justice," though it also reflects the good part of nature to correct the injustice. Unfortunately, the manner in which we do so, can be to the point it is merciless, or malicious in intention, making the virtue inordinate. [Editortial note: I would not be surprised if Father was thinking about the Pharisaical "armchair theologians" that are rising in number on the Internet.]
  • ... at this point, I had to go out and change the thurible coals, so I missed a good chunk of the homily. When I came back ....
  • Father then was explaining the virtue of humility. While I do not remember the beginning part of the explanation, he did illustrate the example. He wanted us to think of the famous WWE wrestler, Hulk Hogan, a muscular strong opponent. If a little girl were to be his opponent, this would be awful and not humble at all, embarrassing, and cruel, on the part of the Hulkster. If you, as a grown adult tried to fight with all your strength, with honesty and sportsmanship, you would obviously lose, but would lose the challenge with humility at fighting an opponent such as the Hulkster. 
  • With humility explained, Fr. Steven entered into speaking about Satan and how he exhibited a total lack of humility in his rebellion against God. In heaven, then Lucifer, meaning "bearer of light," had witnessed the creation of the world, especially that of humanity. Looking at that, he could not bear it. How could God create something so inferior and to show his desire and love them. They are mortal beings! We angels are superior and deserve that privilege simply by right that we are pure spiritual beings! 
  • Were Satan humble, he would have exhibited obedience to his creator, God, and accepted humanity as part of His Divine Plan, and that he created free willed human beings out of the totality of His Love, in being the Divine Creator. Instead, Satan, as an angel with a pure will, made an irreversible decision to rebel against God along with 1/3 of the angels in Heaven [editor comment: which one can logically speculate to include angels of other choirs, like powers, thrones, dominions ... they didn't all just come from one choir.]
  • The Devil, was even more furious after the fact, when He decided to make Mary, a virgin, Blessed, in bearing the Saviour of the world, Jesus Christ. He chose a human flesh woman, to bear through the family and natural childbirth, our Saviour, to take the form of the World of God made flesh. What a travesty to Satan!!! God, purposely decided to have a human nature, of those fleshlings that Satan so hated with all his being, and further, used a human woman to do so. 
  •  As for Mary, she was the counter to the example of the Devil, the women who would crush the Devil's head, as foretold by God after the Fall of Adam and Eve. Unlike Satan, her "fiat" to willingly accept what God wanted after being told by Gabriel, was accepted in total humility, despite not knowing the totality of it, the risks involved, etc. Being faithful to the Lord in practice of her Jewish Faith, as well as a deep devoted level of the virtue of Faith, she was the example of humility, an example which we should emulate in our lives with the Lord. 
When the Mass was over, we were overjoyed, and we all celebrated with refreshments after the Mass in the courtyard space next to the main body of the Church. 

Once again, we must thank the Lord Jesus Christ for the mercy and the loving hearts of the Augustinian Fathers, as another parish in the Archdiocese of Toronto, under the merciful and loving pastor ship of His Eminence, Cardinal Thomas Collins, allowed the Extraordinary Form/Latin Mass to occur. 

Even though it would be great if a parish like Mary Lake or any of the other Vaughan/Woodbridge parishes would offer a frequent Latin Mass offering for the northern regions of the Archdiocese of Toronto, it is a blessing even a yearly offering occurs at a parish! May we thank the Lord for these offerings, and may we pray steadfast to him for the growth and proliferation of offerings in the Archdiocese of Toronto and the Church, under positive leadership that practices the Joy of the Gospel

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Follow up to Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ...

[Important Update! 30/06/2013. After composing my posts, I have now found an official statement from L'Arche, as Mr. Vanier and L'Arche community have become aware of the confusion surrounding the CBC interview. See the official statement here:]

Follow up to Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ... 

They are Highly Wrong at this Point ... Interpreting with the Mind of the Church.

Personally, I shudder at having to criticize or question John Paul Meenan, (herein, JPM) as a faculty member of what is possibly, the only (or first?) established, post secondary institution in Ontario, for orthodox, Catholic studies NOT poisoned by academia or liberalist/secular society, Our Lady Seat of Wisdom in Barry's Bay, Ontario. Might I add that the school is Latin Mass friendly and even has nearby St. Hedwig's Catholic Church that holds the Latin Mass, not to mention the school has a schola for Gregorian Chant and other fine works.

However, an educator and leader in the Church, in a prominent position such as OLSWA, has access to the young minds of our future Church, at their highest peak of philosophical formation. Their formation is CRUCIAL to becoming part of the leadership of the Church, and how they are formed will influence whether that leadership is TRUE evangelization and witness in the world, or just another recycling of lukewarm "c"atholicism, up to and including even becoming the next generation of heretics in the Church who will poison the next generation of minds when they reach power. That poisoning, is usually at the hands of the "liberals," but with their influence being sterile and self-suicidal, the new wave of such poisoning will be at the hands of the "conservatives" or "Traditionalists." This includes the content of the "Information Superhighway" that is the Internet, which my generation and younger are consulting, because they are being spiritually deprived of the TRUTH of their faith by their formators, which should not include, but sadly does: their mis-catechized and ignorant parents, alongside numerous clergy, and certain teachers in the "Catholic" system. 

The youth are not stupid and they know they are being left without truth and answer. I'll share some personal examples to illustrate this. In the ministry I've been involved in recently, some of these youth are telling me they wish that their teachers would explain the Scripture that they read in class, which really means, "What is the TRUTH behind this, not the teacher's version of it, or the answer as they don't have it?" I also recently had a young lady ask me for help to prepare for her Gr. 11 World Religions exam, where her teacher did NOT educate the class on reasons for a Christian (incl. Catholics), or anyone for that matter, to follow the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church. Regardless, that content was part of a review and would likely be on the final exam. All this in a catholic school classroom nonetheless.

When people like JPM contribute work that becomes part of the Radical Misrepresenting Traditionalist (RMT) media network, which innocent young minds like his students and other youth such as I, are highly likely to access publicly and in environments counter to 'modern practices' in the Church, I must fraternally correct and criticize the work, for the sake of the souls of those searching the web on Mr. Vanier's interview and Catholic Orthodoxy/the Latin Mass. I may not be a post-secondary Catholic studies student, or one who has graduated with a P.hD in some advanced field of philosophy/theology, but I will use what arguments and Church documents I must to prevent other young minds and souls from starting, or going deeper down the path of Hell via Radical Traditionalism, and thinking NOT with the Mind of the Church on such matters.

The Original Source Article: The CBC Interview
First, in order to assess the arguments of Meehan, and whether the RMTs have ANY validity to their claims, I read the interview done by CBC, here. The CBC does admit that "part of their conversation" is posted on the web, so one must either transcribe the aired interview in full from the audio recording, or watch the program for the full scoop.

As for the published internet interview parts on CBC, one can tell that the author Carol Off, is asking numerous leading questions to try and steer Mr. Vanier into supporting Euthanasia bill C-14. One example is after Mr. Vanier talks briefly about lonely people and safeguards, she follows up with this: " But at the same time, do not lawmakers have to keep in mind those people who are in intense pain, who are facing a lifetime of suffering — whatever's left to their lives — to what degree do their rights have to be balanced out in this?" the next question, straightly said is, "CO: Do you think that people should have the legal right to choose the timing of their death and to have assistance in doing that?" The next question, once again, talks about "rights" of the euthanasia patient.

Right to start with our breakdown, the actual source of the interview MUST be analyzed. Now, the CBC always has, and is, a left-wing, mainstream media organization. They usually would NOT have reporters, report with the conservative/right-wing slant in the majority of their coverage. One can also reason that based on the emphasis of "rights," this reporter is adhering to that slant, and continually wants Mr. Vanier to give the "correct, liberal" response. Rights in the liberal sense, is NOT the same as human rights. The Catholic Church's view of a human right is the right to live with dignity and respect, to have basic human needs as shelter, food, water, love, etc. Rights are what every human needs to survive and deserve, on account of their inherent dignity.

 A liberal interprets a ``right`` not as such, but beyond what a human absolutely needs in functioning and living fully in this world. "Extras" as it were, extras that are even more important that those absolute human needs! More-so, that a "right" is a "demand" for whatever the minority or individual wants, regardless of the majority`s contrary rights and freedoms. Said liberals will demand it to the highest of heights, even if that person will NOT benefit from the right being demanded to be accepted by the majority ... at all costs. On that note of liberalism, or more appropriately its origin in libertarian-ism, anything that impedes humanity's evolution and self-fulfillment must be challenged and all barriers broken to such fulfillment, including any opposing philosophies and/or understanding of the human person. Keeping this in mind, we cannot trust the CBC and the reporter. this is a biased interview that will attempt to coerce the interviewee to say what the CBC wants them to say in their favour, or according to their liberal beliefs.

Now, even in the partial excepts of the full interview, despite what CO tried to do, Mr. Vanier did NOT in any way, shape or form, directly endorse euthanasia. If anything, he denied Mrs. Off's desire of him acknowledging the "human right" she wants do desperately, here, when she has the direct question of a patient having said legal right: " People could go through periods of just fatigue, depression, loneliness. So we mustn't go too quick to just say "there's a legal right". They also have a legal right to be walked with, accompanied, and helped."

Off then also tries to go for the jugular with the "personal" approach in her last question, whereby CBC reports (surprisingly in text ... as you'd think they'd want the full translation,) "CO: If you don't mind, one final personal question: I'm wondering, can you imagine circumstances in which you might choose to end your life, and to seek assistance to do so? JV: It's certainly a very personal question. And I would say no, I can't see. But, you see, I have never lived intense pain." She tried, but failed.

If anything can be said, during the interview, Jean Vanier continues to re-iterate the most powerful teachings of the prior Vatican II popes, Paul II, Benedict XVI Emeritus, and current pope Francis, about how at the root of much of the problem, is that these people, the handicapped, etc. are NOT loved. By love, it is meant that the person is loved for existing, pain, problems and all. That is what the L'Arche community does with its members and those who work within them.

Am I "taking crazy pills" to quote pop culture villain in the movie Zoolander, Mugatu? Nope, I am not. It turns out I am not the only one to see that Carol Off was an aggressive, biased, pro-euthanasia zealot who wanted to coax Mr. Vanier into supporting her cause. Those of you who are aware of the Pro-Life Movement, and in general the "culture wars," might remember media journalist and political activist, Ezra Levant. He used to be a lead journalist with Sun Media, until it collapsed, and during his time there, had become the subject of some libel suits. Currently, he is the head of The Rebel Media. From the Wikipedia article, "The Rebel Media (or The Rebel) is a conservative Canadian online political and social commentary media platform founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network host Ezra Levant. The Rebel Media broadcasts its content on the Rebel Media YouTube channel and the website."

While not the author, his "The Rebel Media" staff, Brett Fawcett, issued an editorial article on the website, analyzing the CBC interview (
euthanasia_culture_of_death.) I would strongly recommend you read the article in full, but relevant to this blog posting, the summary is that the editorial of Fawcett, agrees entirely with what I've siad, and without a doubt, is in stark contrast to the LifeSiteNews team, JPM, and the Radical Traditionalists who ate up their propaganda:

".... This whole [-life] philosophy is a warm contrast to the cold, contemporary idea that if someone seems too broken to enjoy life sufficiently, then the best option is to help that person kill him or herself. If you want to see how ingrained that latter mentality is, listen to Carol Off’s interview with Vanier for CBC.  Her questions, over and over, circle back to the same basic script: Should Canada legally allow doctor-assisted suicide? And, over and over, Vanier refuses to let himself be locked into this merciless mentality of the secular world. Off is asking the wrong questions: When someone is ill and wants to die, the question isn’t: Should we craft legislation to ensure that they can? The proper question is: How do we prevent people from feeling that way? Vanier consistently counters Off’s queries with this (revolutionary!) attitude: If someone wants to die, they are probably depressed, or lonely, or feel useless or pressured. The remedy for this is to take every effort to ensure that every sick and ailing person feels loved and cared for so that this suicidal idea isn’t there in the first place. This is a beautiful, life-affirming approach, which Off never engages ...." (Fawcett)

This above snip-it of The Rebel Media's posting clearly summarizes that interview. It was biased, and pushy, to force Mr. Vanier to reject his Catholic beliefs and affirm euthanasia. It did NOT work and Mr. Vanier was clever enough to engage in a word fight with Ms. Off, who was clearly off her journalistic game.

Now for the Other Biased Elephant in the Room ... The Mind of the Church Must be Discussed before we can Analyze the Attack by LifeSiteNews (herein, LSN) by Meenan ... 

So at least on the pro-life side (Meenan/LSN), the printed portions from the CBC interview are decently 'kosher.' However Meenan's attack on Mr. Vanier, comes from the FULL interview from the actual recording of the program, and translations of the original French, with portions NOT put in the written text online. In addition, the interpretation of Mr. Meehan towards Vanier's statements, is not thought out wholly according to the mind of the Church, as well as disregards possible factors that can mitigate what Mr. Vanier truly wants to say, or does not express his wishes fully in his words. 

Before I can analyze the direct arguments of Meenan, and the full text, one must discuss what is this "Mind of the Church" that a Catholic must have as their lens for interpreting documents, as well as that of any member of the faithful in regards to their faith.

The Mind of the Church,  can best be read about and defined in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (

To think with the Mind of the Church, we obviously need a "benchmark" as to the major/central teachings of the Church, and what we can measure other things in this world against. With regards to the Church's teaching authority on faith and morals, in what is the Magisterium, and the deposit of faith:

"There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away ....  this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself.  "

This does not exactly mean that documents from the Vatican, catechisms written at X time periods and NOT rescinded, compilations of doctrine/dogma (etc.) are to be dismissed. Then you get heresy garbage like in Longergan Theology where people think if the majority of the Church rejects something on paper, it can be thrown out. That`s how other non-Catholic churches function and look what it has resulted in: Numerous little churches that split off from the main to cater to individual feelings and ideas, until it is so far removed from the original mainline church, or THE CHURCH to begin with.

Rather, the concept of the Mind of the Church with regards to the individual and common doctrine is more along these lines: People can all have a common sentiment or idea about something that is absolute, or part of the Natural Moral Law and Divine Truths that God has established in existence. Individuals can have this common sentiment despite

"...the ideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are the ideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of the Church, the sense or sentiment of the faithful, that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her."

Obviously, the Church itself is to exist for all time, until its existence, tied with all existence, is ended by God at that point in finite time He knows, and has chosen, to end the finite world. Of course, we do not know, but considering the Bible covers 5000+ years of history, and our last century has had the most moral, technological, etc. change in our world, including globalization, that won`t come anytime soon. Over time, many different societies, cities, ways of life, etc. have become minimized or have become parts of history.

Now, through all that history, were the Church to remain static, and no new development in the Faith occurred, in the doctrinal, theological, AND the practical realms of application of said doctrine, the Faith might become a "dead" religion! God, in her wisdom, made sure that the essential "core" of the Faith, its deposit, remains intact (also with the guarantee against all evil in cf. Matthew 16:18,) while expanding and being able to tackle the challenges of each time period, even when crises have hit the Church (e.g. Arianism in the 400-500AD period.) This Magisterium, purposely is a living entity that "... searches in the past ... The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds."

However, when people, both lay and clergy, try to put into concrete action the above in the boldfaced paragraph, trying to express the idea of these truths, to changing times, " ... human groups [are prone] to error and thoughtless or culpable tendencies. The Spirit of God always living in His Church upholds the sense of revealed truth ever living therein."

Henceforth, because of this error, we must always keep in mind that, "The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries."

The underlined is often where (Radical) Traditionalists err in their ability to engage in analyzing actions and theological arguments , and if necessary, engage in charitable, fraternal correction,with regard to events, actions, and both those of their fellow brothers and sisters of Christ. Like the Liberals that they decry against for being heretics/schismatics and breaking Church doctrines, based on their "interpretation" of the Truth, they commit similar error.

Where the RMTs, and now their I.W.S. allies, go against the underlined portions, is in interpretation, and application of the Church's teachings to situations and people. Firstly, they do NOT think with the mind of the Church, in that they do not allow for organic/expanded interpretation of the said common mind/spirit/sentiment of the core "T"radition of the Church. They take the stance that anything even remotely different in verbage or expression, is blasphemy against Her holy "T"radition, and it can be often confused with "t"radition or pastoral practice. While there are genuine cases where things "go to far" (e.g. "Clown" Masses of the initial peak of post Vatican II,) the majority of occasions are NOT so.

This also applies to people speaking on issues or on theology. One who, contrary to the RMTs, thinks with the Mind of the Church, adheres to that common truth or thought, even if their word or expression is not the most eloquent or blunt. In other words, it is when someone directly contravenes teachings that they go against the Tradition of the Church. "Lukewarm" language, incorrect terminology, or weak language, is not a disqualifying condition from them veering from Her Mind. An analogy would be in a legal courtroom, despite how much we desire and how badly the defendant LOOKS like he is guilty (and possibly is,) the defendant is declared ``not guilty`` as the Crown has not sufficiently proven the defendant is, without reasonable doubt, guilty.

RMTs and other extremist right wingers, also go against the underlined portions, particularly in adherence to such strict doctrine, combined with their interpretation. The doctrines and/or, documents of the past, are often used to browbeat into submission, the person to adhere to the Lord's will. This is unacceptable, and the Church would NEVER forcibly make her members obey her commandments, against their free will. This includes wielding her doctrine against people as a weapon. Further, Her ultimate teaching authority is NOT solely restricted to the written word on paper. As much as humanity likes order and routine that does not change, this is NOT how the Church operates in a practical sense, akin to human systems like economics, law, politics, scientific research, etc. While yes, there is order to the Church, and an institution and hierarchy from within, the Church is MORE than just her physical constitution and word. Such a divinely instituted entity is beyond physical limitations of humanity, in thought and word.

Hopefully, you now understand, between my descriptions and especially the underlined portions of text, just WHAT the Mind of the Church is. We can now apply this to JPM's LSN article, in how he veers from the Mind of the Church and how Mr. Vanier does not, despite some of his possible, weaker words in defense of the principle/doctrine of Life from conception till death in the Church.

The LifeSite News Article. "Truth?" or Another Biased Article of the Ultra-Right wing Media, and an Author Veering from Her Holy Church's Mind?

We now turn to the matter at hand: The LifeSiteNews article by JPM that judges Mr. Vanier guilty of being Pro-Euthanasia. Each part will include what Meenan says, and then I will deconstruct these parts in my own analysis/criticism.

The beginning of the article starts of with brief, but positive acknowledgment of the good things of Mr. Vanier's education, his L'Arche community. ANALYSIS - This is a technique whereby you say good things about your target/opponent so that you are not said to be ignorant of the good a person has done, and putting it at the beginning allows people to forget those positive traits, as you go into your criticism of the person. Standard fare for debating, point-counterpoint.

After the praise and adulation ceases, JPM begins his assault. He goes immediately to the first instance whereby biased reporter, Carol Off, asks Mr. Vanier if he is in favour of the proposed Euthanasia law. According to Meenan, in the actual recording of the interview, Mr. Vanier "... confesses on his own recognizance that he is in favour of a law" at the 36 minute of the program. Vanier's starting words are "Shouldn't we have some legislation to permit this?  I say yes, but let's put in safeguards..."

ANALYSISHere, simply because Mr. Vanier accepts the need for a legislation as a blunt yes, he is immediately kicked out of the "Pro-Life" camp's list of heroes, having violated their sacred cow of rigid adherence to pro-life "doctrine." Such doctrine of the camp, if one existed on paper, united or separate from the Church, would state that 'in no way is one to even support anything against life' (e.g. abortion, euthanasia.)

CRITICISM - Surely, Mr Vanier would NOT be so ignorant or stupid, to ignore Canada's current laws with regard to pro-life issues, especially the legal situation of abortion in Canada ... of which there is NO legal situation, because there is NO LAW since 1988 surrounding abortions. You could murder a babe in the womb at any point up to where a baby is born and breathes at least a minute out of the birth canal, completely. Having the L'Arche ministry, he would be acutely aware that due to advances in genetic screening, many babies with abnormalities (e.g. Down's Syndrome,) are aborted before full term in pregnancy. So we can give the benefit of the doubt, that Mr. Vanier likely thought that the current euthanasia situation might end up being a repeat of 1988, and if not, that this juggernaut would likely [as of 15/6/2016, now has passed the 3rd and final reading in the House of Commons and will become law,] become passed as law in Canada. Therefore, as Catholics, we can at least, with the greatest vigor and protest upon Parliament Hill, and whenever publicly, as in this interview, push for safeguards so that we would not be killing people with wanton abandonment, or applying "merciful" euthanasia to patients who have decent to excellent prospects of recovery, yet are given the syringe because of a zealous doctor's (ill?) advised decision. Hence, we can give good
credit to Mr. Vanier, that he spoke in the best manner possible in context of the reality that Canada now faces with regard to this situation.

Furthermore, I would like to start using a strategy out of the Radical Traditionalists' playbook, to expand on this point and prove that Mr. Vanier is more in line with Church teaching in this statement than JPM is not implying: The quoting of sections from Church documents. Specifically, I will quote from one of the very documents JPM uses in his article to attack Mr. Vanier: Evangelium Vitae, by John Paul II in 1993, a document that addresses morality, and moral life issues such as abortion and euthanasia directly. Let's even go further and use portions of one of the VERY SAME paragraphs that Meenan uses: Number 65.

The Church in E.V. outlines a more effective strategy in tackling this issue of how to regulate Euthanasia, or convey what it is to others in the Church and the world. Paragraph 65 states at its beginning: "For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. "Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used .... " (EV, 65)

Obviously, a law that outright bans euthanasia is an ideal, Catholic desire. However, with a Liberal anti-life, majority government led by heretic and "c"atholic traitor, Justin Trudeau, a law such as this would NEVER come to pass in current reality. Therefore, having a law would be better than the 1988 scenario with abortion in Canada, with no law at all, and in passing a the euthanasia law, [though now that law has been passed,] the best option would be as stated in EV 65, so that it would, convey as best as possible in the given circumstances, that clear definition: an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death with the purpose of elimination all suffering. This would achieve the Church's means of allowing people to see that the will, and methods, as well as morality in the Natural Law are part of this, in an absolute way, NOT for the good of humanity [though sadly, even that was struck down by our Senate for being "unconstitutional", and the law went through, without achieving the desire of EV 65.] So, for Mr. Vanier to make that statement, even if he did NOT read Evangelium Vitae, or read it so long ago, or best, has read it in full, he IS making a statement that squares more closely with Church teaching today on the issue of euthanasia, unlike the implications of JPM at that statement.


Next, JPM goes for Mrs. Off's second direct question, the "personal opinion" route, to try to get a direct yes from Mr. Vanier for euthanasia. Mr. Vanier's reply is: "... That is certainly a very personal question, and I would say no...But I have never lived intense pain...".

ANALYSIS: JPM uses EV 65 in order to speak about palliative care in the context of Mr. Vanier's statement, and then uses paragraph 72-73 in order to rigidly state that ANY law that legitimizes killing the unborn or old people, oppose human dignity and the true "right to life." JPM`s usage of the Church`s major class of document, the encyclical, is being used to humiliate and enforce his target into submission, or prove Mr. Vanier is sinfully wrong. It is done NOT out of a true intention to enact the Spiritual work of Mercy of admonishing the sinner. Further, this is selective quoting from Church documents, with the rest of such documents abandoned usually by Radical Traditionalists, in order to thrust their arguments against others, and advance their raison d'etre.

Criticism: Ironically, it is the very reliance on specific pieces of Church doctrine, used as a "billy club" of a police officer to beat down Mr. Vanier, that also can discredit JPM`s arguments. While Radical Traditionalists use selective quoting of Church documents, thankfully, the Church, in her wisdom, thinks as a whole on matters. She realizes the limitations the Faithful can have on the larger world and their society, and by what means they can achieve change in their society to that of the Social Kingship of Christ. Evangelium Vitae, was ahead of its time (in Canada) with regard to forced euthanasia, and even realizes that radical enforcement of change in society is not likely a feasible means for Catholics to pursue, in paragraph 46:

"46. With regard to the last moments of life too, it would be anachronistic to expect biblical revelation to make express reference to present-day issues concerning respect for elderly and sick persons, or to condemn explicitly attempts to hasten their end BY FORCE. The cultural and religious context of the Bible is in no way touched by such temptations; indeed, in that context the wisdom and experience of the elderly are recognized as a unique source of enrichment for the family and for society ...." (EV, 46)

Clearly, John Paul II, in this encyclical, is conveying that the Church realizes, a) that flinging Bible verses as well as Church documents with them, straight out, isn't going to change the minds and hearts of humanity so engrossed in the world, flesh, and the Devil's desires, and b) that Catholics will NOT win the "culture war" as it is deemed by pro-lifers and Theo-political conservatives, through major enforcement of any kind, of the moral TRUTH contained in the Natural Law.

To add, a valid assumption, would be that a professor at an orthodox teaching institution, such as OLSWA, would NOT be so careless as to NOT read a whole encyclical. Likely, this was ignored by JPM for the purpose of concentrating and strengthening his arguments. Together, we can say that Meenan's usage of paragraph 34 from Evangelium Vitae, while being a nice reminder of the Church's position on the value of life from start to end, contradicts EV 46 in Two ways. The first is that the Church (JPII) realizes that such adamant force of the teaching of life on others is not proper for Catholics yet this is what JPM wishes of Mr. Vanier in how EV is used in the editorial/essay. The second is that the Church realizes that few people will be swayed by Biblical/Scriptural including documentation with Revelation regarding end-of-life morality, yet here is JPM doing exactly that with E.V., against another Catholic who WOULD listen to such arguments and who isn't the average 'Joe poorly-catechized "c"atholic.

As a final blow to show that Vanier is 'pro-Euthanasia, JPM had LSN issue a clarification of Mr. Vanier about his words in the interview.

ANALYSIS: Mr Vanier clarifies his words in the interview as stating he stands "... by everything that I have said. The main thing is in any case to support life and to avoid all situations of suicide that originate in a situation of depression and solitude." However, the full transcript of his clarification at the bottom of the article adds insight from a relative who is a pallative care nurse, with two additional lines for attacking Mr. Vanier: "....  If the correct sedative or medication has not been found one cannot oblige someone to live through an unrelenting agony ...." and ".... Pope Francis continues to tell us that everything cannot be regulated by a law and there are always exceptions." With this clarification, JPM goes after the suffering angle, using Pro-Life Hero JPII's Veritas Splendor and Salvifici Doris to say that you can't violate the moral law whatsoever and that " God always provides the helps and graces necessary to bear such suffering as He sends, whether through natural, medical means, or through supernatural, grace-inspired means." Since Mr. Vanier's words are not exactly this, Meenan then says that Mr. Vanier's words are "scandal."

CRITICISM: Once again, JPM has overlooked issues practically, as well as Church document wise, in using Veritas Splendor, but especially Salvifici Doris, in an attempt to make Mr. Vanier deem euthanasia permissible in circumstances, by concentrating on his remarks with regards to patients, pallative care, and suffering. JPM states above about patients suffering that "God always provides ..." in an absolute manner, so Mr. Vanier's statements about drugs and pallative care seem offensive to God and patients in end-stage of life.

Practically, not all patients have the will and mindset to go through to their death, and DO need the medication to sedate them to that point. While yes, there is grace at work in our lives, do you think that a patient can honestly be recipient of that grace, or more importantly, will actively CARE about that, and/or JPII's statements? NO! They will be in excruciating pain or a mental state not fully cognoscente at that point due to the severity, or the shock, of having the terminal illness. Yet here, JPM applies the statement from Salvifici Doris, as if it does not matter what is happening with said patient, and they will carry on to that point. Such an expectation, and application of S.D. is highly unfeasable. Thankfully, the Church has spoken on this matter, not just through Vatican II pope and Pro-Life hero JPII, but also through a Pre-Vatican II pope, Pius XII in a 1957 letter to physicians, Iura et Bona. Once again, Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 65, leads the way in what the Church has to say on the matter, courtesy of JPII, a matter which contradicts JPM's rigorist interpretation and application of Salvifici Doris:

".... In modern medicine, increased attention is being given to what are called "methods of palliative care", which seek to make suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or her ordeal. Among the questions which arise in this context is that of the licitness of using various types of painkillers and sedatives for relieving the patient's pain when this involves the risk of shortening life. While praise may be due to the person who voluntarily accepts suffering by forgoing treatment with pain-killers in order to remain fully lucid and, if a believer, to share consciously in the Lord's Passion, such "heroic" behaviour cannot be considered the duty of everyone. Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by narcotics, even when the result is decreased consciousness and a shortening of life, "if no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties".79 In such a case, death is not willed or sought, even though for reasonable motives one runs the risk of it: there is simply a desire to ease pain effectively by using the analgesics which medicine provides ..." (EV, 65)

So as much as JPM uses S.D. to say there is grace to go ahead to the end of death, the Church realizes not everyone will have the capacity and means to become that "hero" of death, such as JPII was towards the end of his life. Yes, while palliative care is addressed by both JPM and Vanier in the article, it is clear that the rigorist application of  S.D to attack Mr. Vanier, also betrays those patients who cannot actively accept that grace, and the Church in E.V. 65 is more congruent with the sentiments of those dying patients and Mr. Vanier's clarification. Finally nowhere in the portion of the transcript dealing with pallative care, does Mr. Vanier outright advocate euthanasia for that minority of patients who cannot die fully conscious without suffering.

Since JPM is using S.D. in a way that applies to ALL humans, we should speak about them then. He also adds attacking the Holy Father, because Mr. Vanier uses a quote, likely from Pope Francis' recent Amoris Laetitia about legislating law. Meenan uses the following alongside the S.D. reference:

".... let it be said for now that although there may be exceptions to human law, there are never exceptions to the natural moral law, amongst which are suicide and murder, violations of which must be resisted even to the point of martyrdom, as Pope John Paul II declares so forcefully in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (cf., par. 76; 90-94). "

Meenan, myself, a small minority of good, practicing Catholics, and maybe (or maybe not,) Mr. Vanier, would be aware of the natural moral law. As to failing to educate people on that, in the Church and without, there are many fingers to point for blame, but that is not the topic of discussion in this rebuttal. Rather, such knowledge would NOT be known, even by the majority of Catholics in the Church.

While the Church, via the doctrine of infallibility, does have supreme jurisdiction over Faith and Morals, most people in this world do NOT live by those morals/the natural law, nor do other lukewarm Catholics "care" about things in those realms. When a patient whose faith is near dead, or those who are NOT of the Catholic faith know little to nothing about the moral law, or are not of the Catholic faith, violation of the moral law would be the LAST thing on their minds. When the person is approaching that near-death experience, not knowing it will not be their last time on earth, or their family members, intending to end their loved one's current suffering with no foresight of the future, they then will opt for euthanasia when the doctor pushes it on them. We can only hope the doctor is not more inclined to it of an "angel of mercy" serial murderer, and has truthfully considered all medical options. Without the safeguards in the [now passed] euthanasia law, even those whose faith is lapsed, are non-Catholics, or secular, will consider it as the permanent solution to likely temporary problems, including mental illness complications, serious illness that can be treated, etc. Having the "grace" to go through till the end, would be the farthest thing from the mind of those patients, relatives, and medical staff. Also, people will blatantly abuse or ignore the Natural Law and/or Church law anyways, Catholic or not.

So, at the very least in thinking about all those other people that exist outside academia, dealing with the blatant realities of living, Mr. Vanier and Pope Francis, are thinking as realists who realize that not everything can be codified to force people to obey the Church and the moral law, and that civil/human law would at the very least prevent anarchy or wanton abuse of freedoms that would make our situation more tragic and volatile, as in other European countries whose Euthanasia laws are loose and not restrictive. While passing a euthanasia law is not true adherence to the moral law, at least what Mr. Vanier and Francis say, acknowledges the facts I've said and gives some minimal guideline for people to not descent into carnal depravity in this area.

Finally, there is also contained in the last attack, sentiments of antipathy against Pope Francis. Between those in the extremist parts of the Pro-Life, Conservative, Radical Traditionalist, etc. movements of Christians/Catholics, anything uttered by 'Pope Francis the Destroyer' as he is now known on the Internet, and anyone uttering anything from, or defending, Pope Francis, is vilified and given spiteful names like ``papologist`` and ``ultra-monist.`` Any defenders are hated by these champions of their social/liturgical cause, even when said champions literally say they do not hate the Holy Father, or couch their "concerns" in nice words that betray their true intentions. Unless Pope Francis says something that is usable to forward the cause you support, it is uncouth to have any association with the current Holy Father if you are a true Latin Mass devotee, pro-life warrior, culture warrior, social justice warrior, etc.

Don't Forget The Human Factors: Age and Bias
Finally, as an overall criticism of the article, we CANNOT simply take JPM`s article on LifeSite News simply at face value. We cannot truly evaluate this scenario without examining the views of LSN and human factors such as age.

First is LifeSiteNews. One can see their public about page, here. In much blunter terms, LSN is a strictly, anti-culture, pro-life website that operates independently of any government body, or the Church for that matter. While it has people on staff who are Catholic, it is NOT run by a body of Catholics only, nor of Catholics of all shades and stripes. LifeSiteNews as an organization, does not have any Impriatur, Nihil Obstat in their content, bishop's blessing to operate, etc. by any authority or ordinary officer of the Magisterium (a.k.a. a bishop,) in any archdiocese including that which contains their base of operations. They speak not for the Church in anyway whatsoever.

LSN was set up purposely against the cultural narrative of anti-family, anti-pro-life, etc. operating independently of any government or Church oversight, they are free to attack anything that they stand for, without re-probation, or being governed by any laws of the Church and those in authority to implement that law, whether it be properly, loosely, or abusively. They likely did so, in their own words from the about page, to operate in the following manner: "Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre .... attempts to dispel confusion and ignorance, enable constructive dialogue and help informed decisions to be made and appropriate actions to be taken for the good of all."

Understandably so, governance such as the civil government and the Institutional Body of the Church, would hamper them from their goals. The only laws possibly governing them would be civil law, though the only sort of action against them was a frivolous and false lawsuit by dead ex-priest, Fr. Gravel, which ended up being thrown out.

However, a cursory view of the articles, especially ones of the Church/Pope Francis, reveals that at times, LSN has skirted, if not borderline came close to not thinking with the Mind of the Church, and has reacted harshly, especially to Pope Francis. Basically any grave offense to their sacred cow of "pro-life" or not in conjunction with their right views, gets harsh criticism. They would not do this with prior popes. Just one example of their "spin" is here after Pope Francis' latest homily against rigid fundamentalism/Radical Catholicism, where they pit him against pro-life hero, John Paul II, as well as current "Trad hero" Cardinal Robert Sarah, because Pope Francis dared to criticize those who do not think with the Mind of the Church. This is only the first of numerous lashings against the Holy Father,

In addition, while LSN has cleaned up their act a little with regards to their editorial staffing, they did skirt the line with Radical Traditionalism in the past, in the form of former LSN editorialist and journalist, Hilary White. Hilary is the main author and owner of the website What's Wrong with the Synod (started during the time of the extraordinary 2014 synod), who has consistently expressed anti-Church/anti-novus ordo sentiments in her writings, to the point, one could describe her like professional Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong does, as "quasi-schismatic," in her rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass and Church in the form of what Hilary calls, "Novusordoism." Hilary, has always been championing the rights of human life and dignity in her writings as a Catholic, and likely that's what got her on their editorial staff as of June 2014. She was writing articles for LSN, up until May 2015, with her last article being about two episcopal prelates and covering up crimes against youth in the Church. Judging by what she writes now on the blogosphere, the publications she contributes to (e.g. known Radical Traditionalist sites as the Remnant and OnePeterFive, unlike LSN and other mainstream Catholic online publications,) and Dave Armstrong's evaluation/conversations (see here and here) where Hilary has revealed her ever-sliding position downward the Radical Traditionalist (and separation from Holy Mother Church with her "novusordoism" statement,) it is clear that her extremism was the likely factor for her sudden 'disappearance' from the LSN blog page of the main site.

While there may be good souls with good intention contributing to the work for the sake of the pro-life movement (e.g. Ryan Bomberger) who are not Radical Traditionalists, in terms of LSN as a whole, one must realize that they are "right-wing" or staunchly "pro-life" in their media bias, even to the point that anything that contradicts their bias intentionally/unintentionally, will be met with criticism and have an implicit accusation of being anti-life, or taken personally against the pro-life movement and its champions. Further, due to their recent articles involving Pope Francis, and their recent flirtation with Radical Traditionalism in the addition (and recent dismissal of) Hilary White in the Blog page section, it is clear that LSN editorial analysis will not be as accurate as they tout their organization to be. This bias was on full display in their release of Meenan's article, as it fit squarely with their cause, all the while lambasting another Catholic who has done more ministry and the Lord's work than most cradle `Catholics in their lifetimes in being `whole life,` not just pro-life.

Second, to Mr. Vanier's credit, we should give him more benefit of the doubt due to his age. He is currently an octogenarian of 87 years old. It is excellent that at his age he can communicate effectively with our cutthroat, mainstream media in an interview, and continue to play a vital role in the organization he founded for the mentally challenged, L'Arche, with a supportive community structure. However, being that old, it cannot be denied that there likely would be some, generalized cognitive decline, and perhaps certain thought processes, do not come to light as quick, or are momentarily forgotten. Are there seniors that are "sharp" as a tack in their fields of work or in reasoning? Yes, absolutely. Benedict Emeritus XVI is a perfect example (although some Radical Traditionalists are rejecting their one-time Latin Mass hero, blaming him for abandoning the Church and resulting in Bergoglio becoming Pope Francis.) when he has from time to time given speeches of importance, even in his "papal retirement." However, to expect an octogenarian outside of Benedict XVI, to perfectly adhere to the Church's doctrines and teachings, and to apply and communicate such in regard to many moral issues and a perfect manner, is unreasonable. Not to mention try doing that, while under pressure from a journalist with her own, anti-life, pro-choice bias as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, to JPM and LSN, these factors are negated in the light of presenting their "accurate" news, news that is so accurate it can properly assess one`s mind with regards to orthodoxy with Holy Mother Church and the state of a person's soul.

When you think of it in a way, in an odd sort of irony and/or hypocrisy, in this matter, those RMTs, and new allies the ``Ortho-Catholics`` or ``I`m with Stupid`` crowd, who were quick to judge Mr. Vanier for his comments in this clearly biased interview, share a similar type of agenda to that of the pro-euthanasia crowd and our current Canadian government. What they share is this addictive desire to idol worship their side of the moral issue, but both have an underlying "false idol" that they worship, disregarding the common human, born and/or unborn.

Pro-euthanasia politicians and people, push their agendas through in society and in our civil laws. They tout that what they are doing is for the benefit of their citizens, or for those who deserve "mercy:" the suffering, the weak, etc. They tout that every citizen deserves what they are peddling. The truth underlying that crowd, is that they want CONVENIENCE, and the freedom to do away with whatever burdens them from their own selfish whims and progress. It is that convenience and narcissistic pleasure, that is truthfully at the core of their actions, their "golden calf." They do so at the expense of the constitutional rights, true human rights and freedoms, of every person, regardless of country or system of government.

And the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists and I.W.S. crowd, including the article written by Prof. Meenan in LifeSiteNews? They might not be willing to break the moral law that God commanded, and might be on the side of "Pro-life" as it were against the pro-euthanasia above, but like those liberals/pro-euthanasia devotees, they also share the exact same, agenda driven madness of their enemies, but using, abusing, and misinterpreting the "T"radition of the Church. They take the opposite approach in that the moral law is vital, so vital with a Pharisaic rigidity that what is said by the Church is "set" in stone, and any violation of it is an offense greater than the deepest of crimes.

In using and relating established Church Law/Tradition in the Magisterium of the Church, they cast out the Mind of the Church, for the sake of the upholding the law, as codified in catechisms, encyclicals, etc. They do so, stifling the Mind of Holy Mother Church and the organic development of the Magisterium, in addition to usurping her as the authentic interpreter of  such Traditional documents. They disregard the ideas and applications of the individual, simply because it is not steadfastly adhering in a specific manner to every single printed word of the document. In their rush to be the Church's supreme officers, judge, and jury, of a Magisterium they feel is being hardly applied by the Church's true officers (the bishops,) they trample and violate those rights and dignity of other lay faithful and even the Church's own clerics. They too, have their own "golden calf" in the law, documents, doctrines, etc. of the Church, and go so deep as to usurp Her Magisterium in such pursuit of Her laws, thinking NOT with Her Mind. In doing so, they express the opposite in action of the Church's Divine Mercy and Love, exemplified in our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The RMTs'/I.W.Ss' pursuit of their "golden calf," results in what you see in the LifeSiteNews article and on other blogger's websites: calumnies, detraction, and public shaming abound, disguised as "admonishing the sinner". It doesn't matter the person's age, past accomplishments, etc. The pursuit of the upholding of Church "T"radition, at all costs, disregards all other factors including Her Mind, and Her as interpreter of documents and doctrine, including documents on doctrine.

Like John Paul Meenan's sadness at writing such an article, I too, express a sadness at having to challenge a full time faculty member of one of Canada's few, "orthodox" Catholic institutions, where one can send a child after high school and not expect the university/college culture, or the institutions' department of Catholicism/Christianity, to destroy my child's faith. Sadly, Meenan's example of this contribution to LifeSiteNews, is another mark of the ever rising wave of Radical Traditionalism that is claiming the best and brightest, and most devout, honest, and faithful of Catholics, who do not realize that the Devil's works swing both ways: in extremes.

I hope this is honestly a one off event, or that Meenan is just one professor of OLSWA, with the rest not espousing to this Radical Traditionalist frame of mind that deviates from the Mind of the Church. If however, this is NOT just a one off, or that more people at OWSLA share this professor's thoughts, then at the very least, the "mark of orthodoxy" of an academic institution, CANNOT protect the individuals within from falling to 'intellectual sins,' such as Radical Traditionalism. At the absolute worse, this example from Prof. Meehan has now contributed to more internal strife and division, proving that not even our "orthodox" institutions can form students in their mental prime, in the Mind of the Church and in obedience to Her, and protect their Catholic Faith from spiritual decay.

As mentioned earlier, were the Spiritual works of Mercy. Two are ``Counseling the Ignorant``,  and Admonishing the Sinner. I had to enact these two spiritual works of mercy, in order to make you, the readers, especially those of you young people valiantly searching for the REAL truth of the faith, realize that just because a Catholic sticks to the writings of the Church, and/or submits works with such writings, to sites that supposedly give the "read deal," on the Faith, that does NOT mean the work, the author, nor the blog/website is TRULY acting in line with Catholic teaching. What young people like myself, especially those hungering for the Lord, possibly including the Latin Mass, or orthodox TRUE Catholic teaching, don't realize is that their teachers or role models, are resorting to intellectual and theological sins and viewpoints, like the Pharisees of the Temple of old that were chastised numerous times by Christ.

It is bad enough that our rights and freedoms to live our our Christian Faith in developed countries are being eroded and attacked daily. Instead of becoming unified against these threats, it's other Catholics who fight among one another, in person, and especially, those of the more orthodox camps, launching attacks on other Catholics, in the hope of converting them to the lie of the "true orthodoxy of the Faith." To those in the Ortho-Cath camp, I can only say, please stop being like the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists, and aiding them in their internal destruction of the Faith from within. You are not like them, don't become them.

And to all of you, lest you become bogged down with the next odd web report of some Catholic doing something, or the next speech of Pope Francis that has you questioning yourself in confusion,
remember, and seek out, the Love and Divine Mercy of our Lord in this, the Jubilee Year of Mercy.
Ask for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to inflame within you once more to discern things properly with the Mind of the Church.

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin. 

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ...

[Small update 29/6/2016. Professor and Dr. titles taken out with John Paul Meenan. He does not have a P.hD.]

[Important Update! 30/06/2013. After composing my posts, I have now found an official statement from L'Arche, as Mr. Vanier and L'Arche community have become aware of the confusion surrounding the CBC interview. See the official statement here:]

Hello Everyone,

I know that I haven't posted in a while since promoting the June 11th Latin Mass at Mary Lake. I'll have to draft a brief report on that one later when I have time, as well as a small personal report of my own I bet you are wondering about .... have great patience with this newly married husband here.

When you are just starting out in Marriage, yeah it's a bit of a drag setting up the house for living and oh yeah .... actually COOKING your own meals. A lot of luxury you have while living under Mom and Dad's roof, goes highly unappreciated. Commuting to work is also a real time sapper, when you don't have a personal laptop to do blogging work with. All this saps your time.

Now enough about me, save one more note about my lack of time to blog ... or should I say, my latest posting. A two parter, one that needed much time to compose.

Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ... 

A Few Weeks ago ...

... I was almost duped into siding with the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists and calumniating and slandering in the name of the Pharisaical "Church" that exists in their heads. These word-vomitting brutes went quite wrong in the interpretation of liberal main stream media interviewing and calumnied and detracted another Catholic leader. What am I taking about? Let me explain.

In the Catholic world, there always are "heroes" that get propped up among communities for their outstanding service to the Lord, or for being its best defenders and witnesses. One early example in Church History is Tertullian, (c.150-240 AD) whom had written a number of works against heresy and anti-Christian smears against the Church in his time.

Unfortunately, there are also times that these heroes end up "missing the mark" when a particular issue, either doctrinal, theological, or moral comes up where they decide to go against Church teaching or get something wrong, and demonstrate contrary witness. In Tertullian's case, ~211-212 AD, he eventually embraced heresy himself in a form of Montanism, as well as the belief in a work of his, "De fuga in persecutione "whereby flight from persecution is condemned, implying that God's providence intended the believer to suffer. ( It was this break that prevented him from getting a title of "Doctor of the Church" as well as possibly, salvation in heaven, due to his un-reconciled break from the Church.

However, a new and sickening trend is cropping up in today's, highly divisive Catholic Church: Idol and hero worship worthy of violating the 2nd commandment, according to one's theological-political preference, and the rapid and quick dismissal of such heroes when they differ even slightly from the "narrative" one wants. This is happening both on the liberal side of the Church and the Conservative/Radical Misrepresenting Traditionalist (RMT) sides of the Church, with our Holy Father, Pope Francis. This post on Fr. Allan J. McDonald's Southern Orders blog sums this anti-Christian and contrary phenomenon to the Church's witness, with an accompanying video.

Still, The RMTs are notorious for this, cheering on any hero, cleric or laity, who strikes against the "Modernist" (read: corrupted and Not Matt 16:18 protected) Church and its supposed heresiarch, Pope Francis. Also, should one of their heroes veer off just even a teeny bit from the Latin Mass only, strict doctrinal obedience or nothing Church in their heads, many of them will cry out with anger and rage, and dump their heroes like yesterday's expired grocery meat. Others may still defend said heroes, but it is likely with intention of "saving face" or proving to the public including (Arch)diocesan authorities, "Look at me. I'm not a Radical Traditionalist. I defended this now dejected hero unlike the other crazies. I'm not one of them and hence there is no need to question my orthodoxy (in as much as you can ignore my other sin crimes against Jesus,) or stop the Latin Masses in my area if you are a bishop/pastor."

In the last few weeks, the RMTs once again committed a spiritual hate crime, a crime I am truly flabbergasted to witness, as the target's supposed rejection the RMTs are claiming, would violate his own Faith and his primary work of charity. But what sickens my soul even more on this occasion, is that joining the RMTs, and providing their main fuel for mob lynching, are now literal, professors or teachers within "orthodox/Conservative" Catholic institutions, and other normally "sane" Catholic bloggers. These people, tend to be of the best, brightest, and most Faithful laity, in our church, with an online presence or teaching the minds of young Catholics. Sadly, they are become allies of the RMTs, akin to Saruman in Lord of the Rings, who abandoned his wizard order of light to aid Sauron and his minions of evil, even boosting Sauron's orcs with magic to create the brutish and powerful Uruk-Hai.  

While Sauron abused his talents and magical powers for evil, these people, are now lending their "magic" of thoughts, words, and deeds, to the hate train of their more radical, ultra-right brethen in the Church, despite not using the outright bile and vitriol of the RMTs in their compositions. They think that it's also ok at times to lambaste the faithful for straying from orthodoxy, including any Pope in public. They think that it's ok to bring spiritual issues and condemn their wayward brethen, and the Pope, when necessary according to their opinion, not TRUE necessity, or a last resort to employ necessary fraternal correction, a la St. Catherine of Siena. They are contributing to the "pollution" of the liturgical, moral, and theological environments of our Church, not realizing they are becoming enemies of the Church and like the RMTs themselves, only with more "peaceful" words.

To quote a fellow blogger of mine, David Wanat of If I Might Interject, (though this applies to all Catholics, not just the Pope,) they are becoming part of the "I'm with Stupid" (herein, I.W.S.) faction of the Church:

"... there is a new faction rising which seduces the orthodox Catholics by way of making professions of loyalty to the Church and Pope—with a twist. This is the faction that professes their obedience and loyalty to the Pope, [or their Catholic faith and practice of it in areas such as liturgy and daily life,] but treats him [and other "less orthodox" "c"atholics] like a burden must endure every time he opens his mouth or writes something. I call them the “I’m With Stupid” Catholics. These Catholics spend more time trying to criticize what the Pope [and other "c"atholics have]said, than they do showing how the Pope’s words are Catholic. 

They might not accuse him of heresy as the radical traditionalists do, [with laypeople and other clerics not necessarily being immune,] but they do believe they need to lecture him [and others] on what the Church teaching is. That’s not helpful and it’s not loyal either. I say this because such complaints leave the reader with doubts about the Pope’s orthodoxy, knowledge, intelligence, or sanity. One does not build up the Church by tearing down the Pope, no matter how polite one is about it ...."

Might I also add that it creates a "fortress" mentality of the reader of their content, that everyone including their family members and parents, just don't measure up to being "TRUE" "C"atholics, and so they are to be ostracized in the person's life or converted to the reader's (and eventually, the reader's absorbed) Catholic orthodoxy, in a "do or die" manner. The I.W.S. crowd will usually not advocate this approach verbally/in writing, but it is implicit in their attitudes, having an dark effect on the spiritual formation of their audience.

So, just who is the target of all this Trad Hate, and now, "Ortho-Catholic"/I.W.S hatred? The individual of concern is Jean Vanier. 

Jean Vanier and L'Arche Community ... betrayal of his core values?
Briefly speaking, Jean formed what is now the L'Arche community/charity, which has group houses/communities in a number of countries, that specialize in giving mentally challenged adults communities where they can not only be cared after, but where they are treated as more than permanent 'kids to babysit' or simply 'patients' to be sedated/neglected/discarded etc. akin to the mentality of nursing homes (not the homes themselves necessarily, but as dumping grounds for people the family cannot care for, or doesn't care for at all, releasing them of a "burden" off their shoulders.) L'Arche actually allows these challenged individuals to be loved and respected for their existence, exactly as to what Benedict Emeritus XVI's has stated about what true LOVE is, in his Principles of Catholic Theology. L'Arche also allows for certain of those individuals to work in their local civil communities, while giving them a stable living environment.

Because of the marvelous work that Jean Vanier has done with regard to challenged individuals, he has been praised and lauded many times over for this model of love and community, and has been given high honour outside, but especially inside, the Church for his work. Example are abound in my Archdiocese of Toronto, as well as in other counties/areas of Ontario. Catholic high schools have been named after him, in areas such as Richmond Hill, Muskoka region, and Milton, ON.

What the Radicals and their now I.W.S. allies are claiming, is that this hero, has turned his back on the Church and his charity work in the moral issue of euthanasia. This is quite the raging issue in today's world, as a number of countries have already mandated it, and it is leading to "healthy" people who do not fit the criteria to a T being executed in its name. In Canada, [as of June 15, 2016] legislation for legalizing euthanasia [has been passed] through the House of Commons in parliament, in bill C-14, to legalize euthanasia. Our Eminence, ++Collins, as well as other bodies of medical professionals and other figures, valiantly [fought] to, at the very least, have the bill amended so that it does not violate the religions and consciences of people who adhere to religions that value life from birth till death, as well as the medical professionals working privately and publicly in health care, and most importantly, the dignity and respect of patients, regardless of the immense pain and suffering they may be undertaking in their illness.

During discussion of the bill, RMTs and their new "Ortho-Cath" allies, made claims against Vanier, which sprouted from an interview given by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). One particular faculty member, a John Paul Meenan (herein, JPM,) of Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy in Barry's Bay, ON, relayed a scathing, detracting and/or calumnious essay/article to increasingly Radical Traditionalist news outlet, LifeSiteNews (of which their change in "outlook" to merit the Radical Traditionalist title will be discussed in my second posting.) After, his screed was then relayed by RMT blogs, implying that Mr. Vanier has formally turned his back on the Church, supporting Euthanasia.

What the Radicals & Ortho-Caths are Saying ... 
I came across this lynching through my blogger feed, and first thought based on the Radical Traditionalist bloggers' reporting of this, it was just another attack on someone who they perceive as "enemies" of the Church. However, seeing that source was NOT some little media outlet of the RMTs, but the CBC, I then feared the worst that this was, one of two times the broken clock strikes correctly in a day, and was losing grip on my self-vow to not stand with these anti-Catholic RMTs.

I decided to play detective and go backwards, just to make sure I wasn't coming to false conclusions, like RMTs are wonton at making. The secondary source happens to be LifeSiteNews. Their article straight out declares in its by-line, "Jean Vanier supports legalizing assisted suicide in CBC interview" (only linking for the sake of the source of the claims, NOT that I personally support LifeSite News.). The LifeSiteNews article starts to prove its titular claim, by stating at the beginning of the recorded interview from the actual program, As it Happens, "... Carol Off asks him directly whether he is in favour of the proposed assisted suicide law, and Vanier avoids answering directly, but later in the interview, he confesses on his own recognizance that he is in favour of a law.... Vanier in his own words, after a nuanced preface: "Shouldn't we have some legislation to permit this?  I say yes, but let's put in safeguards..."

Now, being clever by thinking of potential critics like myself who stand against the ethos of their media outlet, the author of the LifeSite News article, JPM, decided to put in an immediate counter to those who actually research the original source material of the CBC interview, by saying, "....   Curiously, this snippet does not show up on the CBC's own written transcription, for reasons I cannot discern. A few moments later, as they end their discussion, Ms. Off asks Vanier if he would ever consider having his own life ended: "That is certainly a very personal question, and I would say no...But I have never lived intense pain..." Presuming that under the influence of such 'intense pain', he might avail himself of this option?  Or that others may? ...."

JPM or the editorial staff at LSN, asked Vanier directly for clarification on his words, and Vanier states, "I stand by everything that I have said. The main thing is in any case to support life and to avoid all situations of suicide that originate in a situation of depression and solitude." However, JPM follows up by saying, "So, we may presume, that Dr. Vanier thinks there are cases, outside of depression and solitude, wherein suicide, assisted or not, should be permissible, even aided by law and physicians under the law?  This is what Vanier apparently means when he goes on to clarify:"If the correct sedative or medication has not been found one cannot oblige someone to live through an unrelenting agony." Finally, Vanier ends off his clarification by declaring that Pope Francis continues to tell us that everything cannot be regulated by a law and there are always exceptions." The last sentence is according to JPM, "... referring to the recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia (and other declarations by the Pope) wherein the Holy Father warns against a strict, casuistic reliance upon the 'law', particularly the laws governing marriage."

So then, it seems that our "valiant" hero Mr. Vanier, is now 'gutter trash' to the once admirable Pro-Life movement, Radical Traditionalists, and their new allies, the "Ortho-Caths"/I.W.S's alike. Does he truly deserve to be out-casted by the Church, according to these lay 'Crusaders' of the True and "Trad" and/or "Ortho-Cath"/I.W.S. legions?

My next post will be to answer that question with a firm and resolving, NO! The follow up post to this will tackle the errors and flaws/biases that make these detractors' claims have "reasonable doubt" to take from courtroom jargon. That will be for your reading, tomorrow.

Part 1 Concluded.

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin.