Jesus Christ, the Great Divider

Candle in Darkness

The Gospel reading for the Twentieth Sunday in Ordinary Time contains an important teaching that is fundamental to the faith:

“Do you think that I came to give peace upon the earth?  No, I tell you, but division.  For henceforth in one house five will be divided, three against two, and two against three.  They will be divided, father against son and son against his father; mother against daughter and daughter against the mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Lk. 12:51053).

This teaching is so important that Jesus dwells on it for a moment, explaining and emphasizing it almost to the point of being redundant.  Simply, following Him will produce all types and degrees of division between people, even between members of the same family.

This is not the message we hear from the world, or from the world in the Church.  Rather, Christ is allegedly the great harmonizer Who “heals” all divisions.  If we follow His Gospel of unity, then we will find ourselves generally at peace with the world and with those around us.  In fact, the mark of the true Christian who “gets it” is that they are relaxed and open to others and to the life styles and beliefs of others.  They are peacemakers in the sense that they object to nothing and accept everything.  They simply live and let live.

It is a lie.  The worldling’s notion of peace and harmony is, in fact, the sin of religious indifference  and the vice of cowardice.  And these common moral failures are far more popular than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Hence, you will hear this indifference and cowardice preached far and wide, from both pulpit and podium, from both Church and State.

Jesus did not come in order to bring division.  Dividing people was not His immediate purpose.  But because He has come and called all of us to accept Him, His teaching, and His Church, there will be divisions even between the closest of persons – between spouses, parents and children, and best friends.  Why?  Because some will accept Him while others will reject Him.  Some will embrace His teachings and others will denounce them.

Let’s not be subjective about “accepting” Jesus.  In using the term, I don’t in any way refer to a vague and sentimental sort of acceptance, so that we merely have warm feelings towards Christ.  For genuine faith ultimately is theological; it is specific and holds with undying certainty to clear defined ideas about God, man, the world, and the future.  And this is the reason that true faith brings hardship and division: it holds uncompromisingly to certain defined truths which concern all human persons.

In the last Beatitude, Jesus said,

“Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.  Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you” (Mt. 5:11-12).

This passage refers to unjust persecution for the sake of Christ.  In other words, one is mistreated and mocked by others specifically because one is faithful in some matter to Christ.  This is the division that the faithful cannot, and must not, avoid.  As the world and its adherents increasingly immerse themselves in the most depraved forms of immorality and irreligiosity, and as they continue to promote these – first as an enlightened way, and then as the only permissible way – as a result, standing firm in the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church will increasingly identify us as “different,” and therefore, as divisive.  Fidelity to the Gospel will separate us from those around us.  Loyalty to the God of revelation will divide us from those who overtly or covertly reject that revelation.  This concerns both doctrines and morals, for to accept one thing as true requires that we accept the contrary thing as false, and this is precisely what Christ asks of us: to adhere to the light and renounce the darkness.  But it’s also the consequence of being creatures endowed with reason.  Hence, it is only logical and consistent that, to believe in one body of beliefs is to disbelieve in all contrary bodies of beliefs.  Of course, the modern knee-jerk reaction to this view is to say that one should remain open to all beliefs.  But this is ultimately to say that nothing is true; therefore, belief is irrelevant.  It is doctrinal and moral relativism and the vice of indifference parading as the virtue of tolerance.

To accept as true the teachings of Christ and His Church, and to strive to practice them and teach them to others that they, too, may accept them, is to be divisive.  Sorry, but truth divides, as do love, goodness, and beauty.  Hence, when considering the religion of Islam, one is faced with two  very different Gabriels.   In the Gospel of St. Luke, the angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would bear a Son who would be called the “Son of the Most High” and the “Son of God” (Lk. 1:32, 35).  (Incidentally, at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin Council, the high priest asked Him if he was the Son of God, and Jesus answered, using a Jewish mode of affirmation, “Yes.”)  And yet, the Quran – allegedly revealed to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel – asserts that it is below the majesty of Allah to have a son.  Therefore, it flatly denies the divine Sonship of Christ.

This presents the faithful with a dilemma: we cannot accept both Gabriels, for one denied what the other affirmed.  Both revelations cannot logically be true, for they are opposites.   In addition, at #67 the Catechism says,

“Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations.'”

This passage certainly refers to Islam, since Muslims claim that wherever the Bible and the Quran disagree, the Quran is to be followed since it corrects the corrupted biblical text.

To accept the Christian revelation as true requires that we reject the veracity of the alleged revelations of Mohammad.  This will cause division between Christians and Muslims (though there need not be violence), but there is no other way except the way of indifference, of feigning agreement by avoiding the facts of our respective religions.

Notice that I referred above to the “veracity” of Mohammad’s revelations, and not to their historicity.  It is entirely possible that Mohammad received the contents of the Quran through a real angelic revelation.  I don’t dispute that.  The question is, however, What was the nature of that angel?  And here I’m obviously suggesting the possibility of a demonic event.

Would you like to avoid all division with others?  Would you like to be thought of as an easy-going laid-back and peaceable sort of character who gets along with everyone at all times?  Would you like to escape those tense disagreements about morality with others, those agonizing discussions with your homosexual son, lesbian daughter, cohabitating friends, or transvestite co-worker?  Are you tired of being called “judgmental” purely for mentioning the idea of right and wrong conduct?  It’s very simple and the approach is sure to work: simply be a lukewarm Christian, a cafeteria Catholic, a closet Catholic, a fair-weather friend of God.  Pick and choose from the Deposit of Faith only the happier and easier items.  Follow the spirit of the times and hold only the popular opinions.  Simply omit from the ancient faith whatever the world deems inappropriate, and therefore, divisive.  Let the campaigning politicians, the Hollywood whores, and today’s most militant special interest groups be your savior and redeemer, your Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher).  If you follow the world, then the world will let you be.  It will let you be its slave, that is, and permit you to think and act only as it thinks and acts – minute by minute and trend by trend.

The disciples of Christ are not called to be mundane slaves, but free men and women who follow their Lord wherever He leads.  And to the degree that we do follow Him – yes, we will often be divisive in the opinion of the world, dividing truth from error, good from evil, and light from darkness.

“You are the light of the world.  A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.  Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a measure, but upon the lamp-stand, so as to give light to all in the house” (Mt. 5:14-15).




A Simple Question


How could Islam be a religion of peace, considering that its founder, Mohammad, was a man of war?

Say what you will about the adherents of Christianity; its Founder, Jesus Christ, was a Man of perfect peace, purity, and holiness.

There is no comparison between these two founders.  They are night and Day.  And that’s why I’m a Christian, not a Muslim: I chose the Eternal Day, rather than the night.

Islamic Swords

Are Islam and Catholicism Equally Violent?

Ali Hammuda

On July 31, during the return flight from Poland to Rome, as usual pope Francis held a press conference.  He was asked the following question by reporter Antoine Marie Izoarde.

“Holy Father, before all I make the congratulations to you and Father Lombardi and also to Fr. Spadaro for the feast of St. Ignatius, if you allow me. The question is a little difficult: Catholics are a bit in shock, and not only in France, after the barbarous assassination of Fr. Jacques Hamel – as you know well – in his church while celebrating the Holy Mass. Four days ago you here told us that all religions want peace. But this holy, 86-year-old priest was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So Holy Father, I have two brief questions: why do you, when you speak of these violent events, always speak of terrorists, but never of Islam, never use the word Islam? And then, aside from prayer and dialogue, which are obviously essential, what concrete initiatives can you advise or suggest in order to counteract Islamic violence? Thank you, Holiness.

The Holy Father responded,

“I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy… this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence . . . and no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything. There are violent persons of this religion… this is true: I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them. When fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the language — the Apostle James says this, not me — and even with a knife, no? I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true. I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think . . . They seek peace, encounter . . . The nuncio to an African country told me that the capital where he is there is a trail of people, always full, at the Jubilee Holy Door. And some approach the confessionals — Catholics — others to the benches to pray, but the majority go forward, to pray at the altar of Our Lady… these are Muslims, who want to make the Jubilee. They are brothers, they live… When I was in Central Africa, I went to them, and even the imam came up on the Popemobile… We can coexist well… But there are fundamentalist groups, and even I ask… there is a question… How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups. One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast how they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things… But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist” (Catholic News Agency).


It is so difficult to read Pope Francis’ comments; it’s literally painful.  I pray for him regularly, but I’m sorry; he scares the living daylights out of me.  He is the universal representative and global communicator for the Christian religion to the entire Christian and non-Christian world.  And yet, his statements are consistently so confused and filled with vagueness and generalities that seem tailor-designed to offer optimum opportunity to anti-Catholics.    For example, what exactly is a “Catholic Fundamentalist?”  Please name a specific Catholic Fundamentalist individual and the Catholic Fundamentalist group to which he or she belongs.  I know of two groups which many people would describe in such a derogatory way: pro-life Catholics and traditional Catholics.  But calling a Catholic “pro-life” is like saying he or she believes in the Fifth Commandment, and calling them “traditional” is like saying they hold to a faith that was handed down to them.  In other words, if the word “Catholic” has any coherent meaning, it refers to that type of Christian who, among other things, holds to a pro-life morality and accepts the apostolic faith handed down to them (traditio) with the strongest of convictions.  Many Catholics have died for these fundamental convictions and have been canonized by the Church for it.  So, who and what exactly are these fundamentalists?  Are they the members of Opus Dei?  Are we now stooping to the level of Hollywood anti-Catholic conspiracy theories?  Or are they the theologians and doctors of the Church, such as Saint Alphonsus Liguori, whose feast day is celebrated today?   If so, then please call me a fundamentalist Catholic too, and I will be most honored.

More importantly, I have to respond to the implication that Catholics are violent, just like some Muslims.  This is absolutely absurd.  First and foremost, no Catholic denies that Catholics commit sins.  This is why we have the sacrament of penance: Christ knew we would sin; it is inevitable.  But to speak of this fact in the context of raping, slitting throats, and beheading in the name of Islam is dangerously misleading.  The murderers of Father Jacques Hamel committed their crimes in the name of Islam.  We find this to be the case over and over again in France, Germany, throughout Europe, the Middle East, and in America as well.  Such violence may be an act of Jihad, or Sharia, or an honor killing, but it is all done in the name of Islam and for the glory of Allah.   And it is for good reason that the cry “Allahu Akbar” inspires terror in the hearts of non-Muslims the world over.

Now, the pope’s comments about Catholic violence – “every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy… this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics!  There are violent Catholics!” – these comments do not in any way refer to actual Catholic violence.   Nor do they refer to a movement or organization of Catholic violence.  Nor could we find a Catholic in the universe who would claim that the acts committed by the above mentioned men were motivated by a particular reading of the Catholic religion and supported by even a single priest or bishop.  Rather, these acts are merely two examples of violence committed by people who happen to be Catholic.  The guy who murdered his girlfriend did not do so inspired by a New Testament verse.  The man who murdered his mother-in-law did not do so to gain a reward described in a paragraph of the Catechism.  There is no association whatsoever between their crimes and their Catholic religion.   On the contrary, Catholics who commit such acts and die unrepentant can be certain that they will burn in hell for eternity.  And that is the defined teaching of the Church.  But the case is just the opposite regarding atrocities committed by Muslims.  Such acts of violence are blatantly religious, and the perpetrators are determined to their dying breath to make this clear to all who can hear.  Allahu Akbar!  Allah is greatest!

The claim is often made that it is only fanatical Muslims who kill in the name of Islam; these persons are allegedly isolated demented individuals who clearly are misusing Koranic texts and giving them interpretations that good peace-loving Muslims do not.  So, the religion and its book are not to be blamed, but only such mistaken loners.

The main question here is: How does one know precisely what is, and what is not, authentic Islamic teaching?  What definitive Islamic authority can settle all disputes of interpretation?  After all, Catholicism has an authoritative Sacred Tradition, a magisterium, and a charism of papal infallibility that can settle all questions and disputes regarding Catholic doctrine and morals.  If Pope Francis wanted to, he could appeal to his authority on the highest level and define a truth that all Catholics would then be bound to hold, under pain of mortal sin.  Can Islam do the same?  No, it cannot.  Instead, there are schools of thought and law, with Islamic Imams and scholars differing on important issues – one of them being the true nature of Jihad.  For example, British Imam Ali Hammadu teaches that, because the end of the world is near, it is permissible for a man to have sex slaves.  His teachings have been called “radical,” “twisted,” and “hard-line,” but says who?  Who among the Muslims can authoritatively, definitely, and universally settle this question, or any other question regarding Islamic faith and morals?  Is there a universal Imam appealed to in the Quran whose successors now make such decisions?  No, there is not.  Islam does not have a “pope” that can settle such issues for all the world’s Muslims.

This introduces the next question: Who can tell us if Islam is, or is not, a violent religion?  Those Koranic verses about killing in the service of Allah – what Muslim can definitively explain to us infidels and unbelievers whether they refer to the actual murdering of people, or to the metaphorical killing of vice, or to both?   Who can determine whether the Muslim so-called “fanatic” who goes on a killing spree after Friday prayers is actually the devout Muslim, so that those peace-loving non-violent Muslims are actually the indifferent who couldn’t be bothered to suffer or even lose their lives in the service of Allah?  Are the warriors of ISIS the true Muslims who serve and die for Allah and gain the 72 promised “houris” in a sensual paradise?  They certainly believe they are, and they happen to study the Quran for hours each day.  And yet, non-Muslims do not hesitate to insist that ISIS has it all wrong, that they do not understand their own religion nearly as well as we understand their religion – we who have never even read the Quran!

If we want to make a legitimate claim that Catholicism is equally violent to Islam, then we have to produce countless examples of Catholics emerging from their Good Friday services and going on killing sprees, say, at nursing homes.  If we can find many cases of this happening decade after decade, then perhaps we have a case.  But who is cowering in fear that a Eucharistic Benediction service will be followed by beheadings committed by Catholics quoting the Gospels and the Catechism and shouting “Te Deum”?   The New Testament, the Catechism, and before the Holy Eucharist are the last places where one could find inspiration for violence.

If Catholicism is equally violent to Islam, then let’s please see the daily reports throughout the world of Catholics committing bloody atrocities against the innocent, inspired entirely by their religion.  Where are they?  And where are the Catholic equivalents of Ali Hammuda?

I have a challenge for all those who claim Islam is an inherently peaceful and tolerant religion: stop repeating the platitudes and read the entire Quran for yourselves.  I think you’ll be quite shocked by what you find, starting from the first pages.

French Priest Murdered in Church

Fr. Jacques Hamel

A Catholic priest was beheaded and a nun seriously injured during an attack by Islamists in a church in Rouen, France.   During 9am Mass on Tuesday, two teenaged males entered the parish of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, shouting “Daesh” (Arabic for “Islamic State”) and “Jihad”.  The young men took several hostages, including the priest, two nuns, and two lay people.  One of the nuns managed to escape and then contacted the police.  During the attack, one of the young men preached something like a sermon in Arabic from the altar.  Then, while filming the attack, they forced 85 year-old Father Jacques Hamel to kneel, and then slit his throat.  French police finally shot and killed the attackers as they left the Church shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”  Both of them lived locally and were known to authorities.  ISIS has claimed responsibility.

The so-called “religion of peace” strikes again.  Is it any wonder?  After all, the Qur’an says,

“When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck” (47:4).

But our political and religious leaders just don’t get the message; they refuse to see the light, to recognize the battle all around us.  How many methodical executions will it take to awaken them to the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace, that a war has been declared against all “disbelievers,” and that this war is now being openly waged in Europe and America?  It is being fought – right now, today, tomorrow, and the next day – while our potentates cozily snooze away in pleasant dreams of peace.  Their unwillingness to rise to the occasion, look straight into the eyes of evil, and call it evil, is a threat to all of us.

The essential element in the West’s defeat by Islam is the absurd tolerance of the radical left that amounts to a dictatorship of indifference.  Even as innocent people are regularly slaughtered by militant Muslims, westerners cower in fear of denouncing the murderers, lest they be identified as “intolerant,” “Islamophobic,” or “hate-mongers.”  This politically-motivated and imposed fear so dominates our cultures that, following the latest Islamic atrocity, one can easily predict the twaddle and blather soon to flow from our media and political and religious leaders.  Hence, tomorrow’s comments from the powers-that-be will make abundant references to “senseless violence,” atrocities carried out by “loners,” and deep concern for repercussions against the “peaceful Muslim community.”  Meanwhile, the authorities will continue to “search for a motive” for the attack.  And all of this for the simple reason that they refuse to recognize our sworn enemy.

It is a game for lunatics – these redundant post-attack performances by the left.  One could write tomorrow’s news reports today, because the radical left strictly follows a script and dictates it to others.  When one commonsensical thing screams to be said, just the opposite is said.  When all the solicitude should be directed towards Christians and all non-Muslims, instead, it is directed exclusively towards Muslims, towards the religion that inspires the killing.  Tomorrow, the increased security will be placed around mosques, more so than around churches or synagogues.  With every act of religiously-motivated terror, Islam is all the more proclaimed, defended, and even celebrated as a religion of kindness and mercy.  This is the insanity of the radical left that has lost the very instinct of survival, and that threatens with charges of hate crimes all those who respond to the murder of the innocent with righteous anger.

This psychological control imposed upon the west by western political and religious leaders of the progressive type is key to the Islamization of our world.  It is the essential element in silencing legitimate expressions of outrage and indignation, and in eliminating any meaningful resistance.  Islam could never conquer the west by shear violence, by jihad alone.  No, the successful Islamization of the west requires the cooperation of that emasculating ideology called Liberalism, which consistently favors the wrong party and sympathizes, not with the innocent victim, but with the ruthless aggressor.  Alas, this is the cabal trained in the killing fields of abortion on demand.  We should never expect to find a compassionate heart beating in the chests of these leftist monsters that rule us.

In the name of openness, tolerance, diversity, and multi-culturalism, we have had taken from us the right to survive.


The Crusader’s Shield

Crusader Shield






Notice that, here and below, I’ve used the Crusader’s shield, not his sword.  One does not hurt or kill others with a shield; rather, one remains protected by means of it, and with it one may protect others.  Nor is it a sign of cowardice, since shields are found only on battlefields.  It is the higher meaning of this shield that I’d like to describe.

The Crusader’s shield represents the Gospel truth that the faithful are protected by the Hand of God.  This does not mean we will not suffer, nor even that we won’t at times be tortured and slaughtered by our enemies.  The revealed fact is that many will be.  Christ repeatedly warned us of this, the first three centuries of Christianity demonstrated it, and the modern history of political and atheistic ideologies further proves it.  Yes, the faithful will be killed en masse, not only by those forces that oppose God and religion, but also by those that firmly believe they torture and slaughter us for the glory of God.  Hence, the infamous cry of the Muslim murderer, “Allahu Akbar,” meaning, “Allah is greatest.”  This is the worldly war of the prince of this world, and it is one in which the saints, at the conclusion of time, will finally be overcome…for a moment.  But even then, a divine Hand will protect the faithful, not from the first death of the body, but from the second death of the soul, from damnation.

The Crusader’s shield means that we are not to fear those who can harm us here, but not hereafter.  Jesus said,

“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  But rather be afraid of him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt. 10:28).

Christ did not teach us to fear the devil.  God forbid that the devil should be offered such respect.  No, it is God alone Who determines our eternity, based on our faith, hope, and charity.  Therefore, we are not to live in obsessive fear either of wicked men or of wicked angels.  We are to fear, instead, offending the God of Love.  For the consequences of opposing fallen men and angels are only temporal, but the consequences of opposing the one true God through sin and unbelief are eternal.

What is the mission of the Catholic who invisibly but truly bears the Crusader’s shield?  It is to carry the saving Gospel to all who, to one degree or another, oppose it, confound it, dilute it, or deny it.  This includes Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans, atheists, agnostics, and yes, Catholics.  This is our war, a battle fought against natural and preternatural forces, using only the supernatural instruments of truth and grace.  And most remarkably, it is fought for the benefit of our enemies, that they might be saved.

What is the objective of this crusade?  It is to call the elect to the Kingdom of God.  It is not to win each and every struggle – be it religious, cultural, political, or military – but simply to offer our best defense of the Kingdom, in order to fill that Kingdom, for the salvation of souls and the glory of God.

This is our victory, and it is the only one that matters.  But it will exist beside a trillion defeats, as the modern world madly plunges itself into depths of cruelty and depravity unknown to both animals and civilized peoples.   We have lost many battles, especially in the domains of sexuality and family, so that perverse laws are multiplying all around us.  In spite of it all, we must march on.  The Church must continue to proclaim the truth she has received from God to a world that despises truth, because some people will respond to it.  Most will not, but some will, so that it must be offered to all.  By a miracle of divine grace, some will hear the call of the Kingdom and repent, believe, be baptized, and be saved.

The Church’s great mission is this and no other: to fill the Kingdom of God with the elect.  One can take part in this mission, not at the hilt of Muhammad’s sword, but only behind the Crusader’s venerable shield.



Two Methods of Teaching Heresy

Cut and Paste Bible

Catholic moral theology teaches that there are two ways of sinning: either we can do what we shouldn’t have done, or else, we can fail to do what we should have done.  The first is called a sin of commission and the second a sin of omission.  These two moral categories offer insight into sins against faith as well.

The Compendium says,

Faith believes in God and rejects everything that is opposed to it, such as deliberate doubt, unbelief, heresy, apostasy, and schism” (#442).

The Catechism teaches,

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (#2089).

In order to commit a sin of heresy against the faith, one must first know that a particular belief belongs to that deposit of faith taught by the Church and intended for all the faithful to believe.  The person who, in ignorance, rejects such teaching is a material heretic, while the person who knowingly rejects such teaching is a formal heretic.  The guilt of a material heretic can be minimal or non-existent, while the guilt of a formal heretic is grave.

An example of a material heretic is a child who was born and raised in a Protestant or Catholic home in which the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist was denied.  The child’s duty is to accept and respect that faith and religious practice which his or her parents provides.  Of course, eventually the child will reach the age at which he or she has the duty to more carefully examine the parents’ faith and decide for or against its veracity.  If, after examining the doctrine, the adult person realizes that their parents’ faith is in error and that the Real Presence actually belongs to the ancient and Apostolic faith, then he or she has the duty to renounce the heresy and embrace the truth.  Otherwise, the guilt of that heresy will cease being merely material and become formal and grave.

My concern with this post is not with the actual heretic or his or her guilt, but rather, with the methods used in spreading heresy.  The modern Church offers us countless demonstrations of the point I’d like to make.

As with the two ways of sinning, so with the two methods of teaching heresy.  The simpler and more obvious method is heresy by commission.  This consists of asserting either that something false is true, or else, that something true is false.  The heretic boldly and openly proclaims the heresy, and by comparing it with the true faith, any person who cares can, with research, come to realize the teaching is an error.

However, the far more effective and shrewd method of teaching heresy is heresy by omission.  This approach ultimately involves no false statements or contradictions of the truth.  There is no asserted doctrine that is heretical, but only a long-term effect.  The false teaching is more of an impression, and this keeps it virtually invisibleHeresy by omission consists of teaching only a portion of the truth as if it were the whole truth.  When this is done week after week and year after year, those who receive such teaching and look no further develop an incomplete and warped faith – one that is lacking fundamental elements of the Gospel and is, therefore, truly heretical.

Now for a few examples.  Let’s again take the Real Presence.  According to the heresy by omission method, one can effectively deny this doctrine simply by never teaching about it.  Simply assert, year after year, that the Holy Mass is a commemoration of Jesus’ love for us, and nothing more.  There’s no need to deny a doctrinal truth; just avoid it in both preaching and music.  The people will slowly get the erroneous message that the Holy Mass is no different from a Protestant communion service – juice and crackers for every single member of the community of faith, no exceptions.  Without an uttered word of heresy, belief in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and the sacrificial nature of the Mass will simply melt away and appear to peoples’ memories to have been discarded as “old Church” dogma.

Consider also death, judgment, purgatory, hell, and heaven.  By following the heresy by omission method and omitting from the pulpit all except the last item, the preacher can effectively wipe out the “last things” from Catholic consciousness, minus the most pleasant one – heaven.  He merely has to let the Advent and Lenten seasons pass, as well as the Feast of Christ the King and the funerals, week after week and year after year, without uttering a syllable about the temporal and eternal consequences of mortal and venial sin.  The method will invariably bear its insipid fruit.  Having heard nothing about judgment, purgatory, or hell, but only constant assurances about easy salvation, the faithful will cheerfully conclude that everyone and their pet goes to heaven.

Consider especially the love and mercy of God.  On any given Sunday, regardless of the themes of the Scripture readings, one can expect to hear a sermon in which it is asserted that God is love and mercy ad infinitum.  There’s nothing wrong with this statement; it’s positively Gospel truth, period.  But there’s far more to say about God than just this; namely, that He is also just, and has repeatedly said so Himself.   And any preacher who will not passionately and repeatedly warn his congregation of this fact – for love of that congregation – is a negligent and dangerous shepherd indeed.   With such shepherds, what need is there for wolves?  The end result of hearing, week after week and year after year, that God is only loving and merciful – even to unrepentant sinners – is the presumption that God is not just and will never punish anyone for anything.  Could a more replete encouragement to sin exist than this subtle denial of the Day of Judgment?

Heresy by omission is widespread in the modern Church.  As an example, in the past twenty-four years, I’ve heard the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoted from in homilies a total of three times!  Probably many Catholics are unaware that such an authoritative resource even exists.  The Catechism contains the complete faith, including those many doctrines and morals which have been methodically and consistently omitted for decades  from our Sunday sermons.  I guess avoiding the Catechism only makes sense, if you’re promoting another gospel.

Folks, read the Catechism and the Compendium and the Bible!   Don’t expect to be handed the truth that saves.  Care enough about the temporal and eternal welfare of your own souls to seek the truth for yourselves, and then bring it to others.  There is absolutely no excuse in this age of media to be without it for even one more moment.  Only the Truth can set you free to salvation.  There is hope in No One else.