I am seeing several stories of how hackers are trying to get into WordPress blogs.  One such story is linked below.

How To Sidestep The WordPress Botnet Hack | SiliconANGLE.

The two basic steps that I am hearing to prevent your site from being hacked are to:

1) Don’t use the default username. If you still have it as ‘Admin’, change it now.

2)  Use a strong password.  I have been upgrading all of my passwords (not just my WordPress one).  A combination of letters, numbers, and symbols (things like !, # and &) are good.  Also, make it long.  8 character passwords used to be enough.  Now I recommend at least 16.  It gets exponentially harder to brute-force hack your password the longer it is.

Keep safe and God Bless,

Average Catholic

Reblogged from quiavideruntoculi:

I am staggered at the extent to which the standard history that people are taught at school,  read in books, and imbibe (imbeeb?) from the Television, turns out to be utterly false on closer inspection. I don't mean that it errs in minor details (though it often does); I mean that it is often exactly the opposite of the truth. Almost invariably the lie turns out to originate with somebody with a definite philosophical…

Read more… 534 more words

From Rorate Caeli, the papacy of Pope Francis is going to be consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima on May 13, the anniversary of the first vision of Our Lady to the three shepherd children – Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta.

This really warms my heart.  I have a great devotion to Our Lady of Fatima.

God bless Pope Francis

Gloria TV News has a lot of interesting stories today. You can access the video HERE (I’ve always had trouble embedding the Gloria TV News vids into my WordPress blog).

Today’s stories include two on Pope Francis, one on Europe and the declining Catholic population since the Second Vatican Council, the fight against the redefinition of marriage (this is the third post of mine that references that today), and someone who prays for “the Holy Fathers”, someone who misses the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI very much.

In this Vortex, Michael Voris deals with the subject of homosexuality, and the idea that homosexuals are “born that way”, and thus must be wanted that way by God.  He shines the light on the problems of this argument, including that it could be used to defend against any number of sexual sins.  Mr. Voris references a special “FBI” that Church Militant TV made on the subject.

This is definitely worth the few minutes to watch.  Michael Voris claims (and I agree) that homosexuality is actually broken heterosexuality.

With the Supreme Court cases on homosexual marriage in the news (one on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the other on California Proposition 8), there is a lot of religious reporting on homosexuality, and reactions to the cases.  This is going to be the first of several posts today.

World Magazine, and evangelical publication, has a good article on homosexuality and what Holy Scripture (both Old and New Testament) has to say about it.  You can access that article HERE.

I wanted to note a couple of things about the article.  One, it discusses context for the different passages that discuss the sin, and goes into detail that not only to engage in the act of homosexuality, but also to engage in lust or willful desire, is sinful.  This is the same as a heterosexual engaging in lust for a woman he is not married to.

Also, I found it interesting in explaining a passage by Saint Paul, Wayne Grudem reference the Septuagint (Greek translation), to explain it.  The Septuagint includes the “Catholic books”, including the Maccabees and others.  The Apostles used the Septuagint as a reference when writing the New Testament.  I will write more about that another time.

Finally, I appreciated the “objections” section of the article, dealing with the objections that are often raised against the Biblical passages of homosexuality, including the “I was born that way”, and the idea that “The Bible was only condemning those who are actually heterosexual from engaging in homosexual acts.”

It is a great reference if you need to locate the passages that deal with homosexuality, and dealing with the common objections against these passages.

I found myself wishing that Catholics would provide a good resource concerning this in regards to Holy Scripture.  While my next post isn’t about Biblical references to it, I was happy that a Catholic provided his own arguments.  Coming up…

Author’s Note:  Some of this is a repeat of what I have said in the past.  I am including new material at the top and bottom though, so please read the whole post

After returning to church over a decade ago (I never denied being Catholic, but as a young man my practice was lackadaisical), I was very hungry for all things Catholic.  I read a book by George Weigel called “Witness to Hope” (available HERE, Kindle version HERE), which was a wonderful biography of Pope John Paul II.

In one part of the book, Mr. Weigel discusses religious freedom, and its promotion at the Second Vatican Council.  As Mr. Weigel mentions Archbishop Lefebvre, I immediately sat up and took notice.  As I had received First Communion at an SSPX chapel (Our Lady of the Rosary, now over three decades ago), and with a fond memory of my catechism teacher, fellow students, the Rosaries, Gregorian Chant, etc, I knew who the archbishop was.  Even after we moved, my father kept up with what was going on with the society, and I was able to stay aware, from a child’s perspective, of what was going on with the SSPX.

While I have over the past 12 years come to take a different position than George Weigel on religious liberty, I still respect his opinions and his writing, even if I strongly disagree with him at times.  I remember fondly attending a talk of Mr. Weigel’s in Peoria, IL in October 2002.  I even threw out the first question when we got to that portion of his talk

Anyways, from Witness to Hope, I wanted to quote George Weigel as he discussed religious liberty.  Then I am going to provide a link (actually a couple) to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s view.

From Witness to Hope, page 163:

Karol Wojtyla also participated vigorously in the third session’s most controversial debate, on religious freedom, in one spoken and two written interventions.

Why was religious freedom so controversial at Vatican II?

Some Council Fathers took a philosophical position that, once its premises were granted, was at least logical.  ”Error” had “no rights.” States should recognize this so that justice would be served; therefore the optimum arrangement between Church and state was one in which the state recognized the truth of Catholicism and gave it a privileged place in society.  Others, including a vocal French missionary archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, were convinced that any Catholic endorsement of religious freedom meant endorsing the radical secularizing politics that had been let loose during the French Revolution.  Still others worried that a conciliar defense of religious freedom would involve such a dramatic development of doctrine as to suggest that the Church had been gravely mistaken in the past.  These concerns not infrequently overlapped in some bishops’ minds.

My concern with religious freedom (as opposed to religious tolerance) is pretty much summed up with what Mr. Weigel wrote.  1) Error does not have rights.  2) A culture is created in society that is radically secular.  3) It is a departure from the Church’s teachings of the past.

As to the secularization of society, that is happening around us now.  Look at the battle the Church is in within the United States just to maintain its institutions – schools, colleges, hospitals, etc – without having to promote mortal sin, that being contraception, abortion drugs, sterilizations.  So in that respect, Archbishop Lefebvre was right.

As to error having no rights, and a departure from past church teachings, there are many papal encyclicals and other documents from pre-Vatican II times that state that states SHOULD promote the Catholic faith, and that “religious indifferentism”, what religious liberty used to be called, is a bad thing.  One of the ones I often point to, because it is concise, is Mirari Vos.  The idea that anyone has a right to religious liberty actually clashes with this document (search my site for others as well).  And since the Church is supposed to be protected from teaching error, if you have two contradicting documents teaching opposite things, you have a problem.

Now, perhaps unlike some in the SSPX and other Traditionalists, I think that as long as you interpret the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II’s document on religious freedom, that anywhere it could be interpreted as conflicting with previous Church teaching, that it is to be understood as agreeing with the previous teaching, and not the other way around, that DH can agree with Catholic Tradition.

Anything else gives us a break in Catholic Tradition, and thus the Catholic Church would not be protected from error.  And then the question would arise, why be Catholic?  Why trust the traditional Catholic teaching that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?  Etc.

Well, so far I’ve quote Mr. Weigel, and shared my own thoughts.  But why don’t we hear from Archbishop Lefebvre himself?

THIS BLOG POST, from Angelus Press, discusses the Archbishop’s position on Religious Liberty.  It quotes Archbishop Lefebvre himself, rather than paraphrasing what he had to say.  Here is a portion of their post (please, go over there and read the whole thing!)

Already, before the Council even begins, there is a tension, which, as the Archbishop points out, can be seen in the titles: On Religious Liberty vs. On Religious Toleration. To the modern mind, we may not notice much of a difference, but the most important part of this debate, especially as it relates to the modern world is found in this difference. When I say something has liberty in some aspect, I am referring to a right it possesses. When I say something is tolerated, I am explicitly saying that it is not ideal, that is it not even good (in itself), but that some greater good demands that in prudence, the evil be tolerated. Keep this in mind as we continue this short look.

Concerning the schema on Ecumenism, Archbishop Lefebvre directs his actions against a false notion of the dignity of man. He says, in an intervention to the Decree on Ecumenism, and here we quote from him at length,

Venerable Brethren,

All the arguments of Chapter 5 on the subject of ‘religious liberty’ are based on the assertion of the ‘dignity of the human person.’ It is said, in fact, on page 4, para.3:

Thus the man who sincerely obeys his conscience intends to obey God Himself, even though sometimes in a confused way and without knowing it, and that man must be judged worthy of respect.’

My pure and simple reply to accepting such a statement as it stands is no. Considering the matter more closely, a distinction must be made: In view of his intention to obey God, yes; in view of his confusion, no.

From where, in fact, does the person derive his dignity? He draws his dignity from his perfection. Noiw the perfection of the human person consists in the knowledge of the Truth and the acquisisition of the Good. This is the beginning of eternal life, and eternal life is ‘that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent’ (Jn. 17:3). Consequently, so long as he clings to error, the human person falls short of his dignity.

I have read the words of the archbishop before.  His interventions within the Second Vatican Council are contained in a book sold by Angelus Press called “I Accuse the Council”.  You can buy it from Angelus Press HERE.  It is a relatively short read (at least compared to the books I usually read ).

Note:  DON’T buy it off Amazon.  Used versions of it are selling for ridiculous prices there!

Finally, a recommendation.  READ THE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS.  There are so many people saying “The Council says this”, or “The Council says that”. And often they are trying to mislead you, not giving you the whole truth.  All of the council documents are available HERE.  Every one of them!  In a lot of languages!  A lot of Catholics have never read them!

Also, read what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had to say.  A couple of good books are HERE (I Accuse the Council, already linked above) and HERE (Open Letter to Confused Catholics).  The Kindle version of the second book is HERE.  His positions are very well thought-out.

And then come to your own conclusions.  One of the great tragedies of our time is that, when so much of what we need to know is available at the click of a mouse, so many people do not take the time to do the research, but instead depend on ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc, all of which have agendas.

God Bless,

AC

For the attacks against Benedict XVI, Michael Voris talks about the contrasts the media is drawing between Pope Francis and Benedict XVI.  By constantly stating “The Catholic Church NOW has a pope that loves the poor”, the implicit message is that the previous popes did not.  Also the target of these comparisons is to try to undermine Church teaching on faith and morals, especially the “pelvic issues”.  Good luck with that liberals.  The pope is INCAPABLE of changing Church teachings on morals, even if he wanted to.  The papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error in faith and morals.

The other attacks are against Pope Francis, and these are coming from some in the traditionalist wing of the Church.  Some of the comments on Rorate-Caeli‘s posts (the site is a great resource for Traditionalists, it is some of the people in the com-boxes I am referring to), and some of those in Fisheaters/etc , have been disgusting (some of the people commenting — the owner of Fisheaters, Vox Clamantis, is great.  And the main site, HERE, is a wonderful resource for all Catholics).

Pope Francis is not going to be perfect, but he is the pope.  And the office of the papacy, and the holder of that office, deserves our respect.

Note I am saying some traditionalists are launching these attacks.  Most Catholic traditionalists respect the pope, because that is what a traditionally-minded Catholic does.  We respect the office of Peter.  We respect the papacy even if we disagree with with certain actions of a pope (for example, the Assisi interfaith meetings), or don’t agree with the style or personality of a particular pope.

Also, as Michael Matt from the Remnant Newspaper noted in one of his reports, some very liberal cardinals turn out to be great popes.  He uses Pope Pius IX as an example:

I remain hopeful, despite my initial sense of dread last night when it was announced that a South American Jesuit would be the new successor of St. Peter. Perhaps my dread will prove to have been warranted. Please God let it not be so. In the meantime the grace of office and the mysterious workings of the Holy Ghost can and often do change everything, as the example of Pope Pius IX bears out— the liberal cardinal who quite unexpectedly became the great papal hammer of the liberals.

Personally, I would have loved to have a Pope Burke (whatever papal name he took), but I will love Pope Francis, and pray for him as often as I can. He is the successor of Peter, the rock that will guide the Catholic Church.

God bless Pope Francis.  God bless the Catholic Church.

During our Saint Patrick’s Day dinner, I was telling the story of Saint Patrick and how he converted Ireland to the Catholic faith.

I reached the part where Patrick had been ordained a bishop, and had returned to Ireland.

I threw out the question, “So what did Saint Patrick do in Ireland?”

To which my 3-year old called out, very excitedly…

“He blew the house down!!”

Methinks little Benedict is getting his stories confused