22 February 2011


I. Headline: "Monsignor Feeney Foundation presents... An Evening with Stephen Lewis". Byline: "Celebrated Humanitarian: Stephen Lewis is one of Canada's most influential commentators of social affairs, international development and human rights. He has been named by TIME magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world (he was cited in the category which included The Dali Lama, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and Nelson Mandela)". Where: Hilton Hotel, 300 King Street, London, ON. When: Wednesday February 16, 2011, Cocktails at 6 pm, Presentation at 7 pm. Cost: Tickets $45 each... So splashed the poster for Steve. Query: Why did a Catholic foundation sponsor this enemy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Before diving into this affair, let's provide a brief backgrounder. Prior to his current incarnation as cause célèbre humanitaire, Steve played two significant roles in his global campaign against human life. First, as politician. As a young man, his entry dans le monde started with a "clerical position" at the Socialist International. His socialism, no doubt, was inculcated by his father, one time National Secretary of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF was Canada's Communist party before morphing into the Fabianst NDP. The fact that Steve twice dropped out of law school, from the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia, was irrelevant for his qualification as a future prominent politician. CCF leader and eugenicist Tommy Douglas, CBC's "greatest Canadian", made sure of that. He became NDP Member of Parliament in Ontario in 1963 and it was as early as 1965 that Steve the atheist was promoting the legalization of abortion.[1] He was NDP Leader from 1970 to 1978. The second role was as diplomat/broadcaster. From 1984 to 1988 he was the Canadian Ambassador to the UN. During the 1980s he was also a regular a political panelist on the most boring radio program ever produced in the history of humanity: CBC's Morningside with Peter Gzowski. Finally, from 1995 to 1999 he was Deputy Director of UNICEF, thus interassociated with his later self-named The Stephen Lewis Foundation. Humility is not a trait endemic to this B-grade secular messiah.

III. Just one more aside, on Steve's familial cohorts. His wife Michelle Landsberg is a notorious activist and columnist at The Toronto Star. For decades she's penned tracts against the Catholic Church, being particularly vicious against the pro-life movement. Landsberg is also a good friend of "professional Catholics". In 2007 the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) asked her to be keynote speaker at its biennial conference.[2] To be sure, there's something very Sidney and Beatrice Webb about these two.[3] Also note that their son Avi Lewis, formerly of the CBC via the nepotistic gateway, is now a program host at Al-Jazeera. To top things off, his wife is popular author Naomi Klein, proponent of Eurostyle socialism, hater of free markets.[4] This isn't the Brady Bunch.

IV. It was with Steve's CBC Massey Lectures in 2005, and its resulting book,[5] that The Stephen Lewis Foundation (an NGO that financially supports HIV/AIDS groups in Africa) really started to mete itself out, as in the endorsement of abortion, "safe sex", condoms, including the unproven notion that male circumcision mitigates HIV risk.[6]. Given this agenda, it was inevitable that Steve's anti-Catholic bigotry would emerge during the Pope's visit to Africa in March 2009, whereupon B16 acuminated:
The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer.[7]
The international media, of course, went bonkers and quickly pounced on Pope Benedict. Steve, too, got in on the action and, lo!, the vilifications spewed from this so-called humanitarian: "The Pope is living on the moon - every stitch of scientific evidence says condoms are the best preventative measure we have against the virus... another example of the complete indifference to the vulnerability of women".[8] Not according to a liberal professor at Harvard, who (rather surprisingly) came to B16's defence after the media onslaught.[9] Later in a November 2009 the Globe & Mail quoted Steve as saying the "Pope's words are simply not to be taken seriously on the issue. People are too smart to be taken in". Benny must have really gotten on Steve's nerves as the latter was still bemoaning in 2010, stating that the former is "sending a message which ultimately kills people... His words were, frankly, irresponsible and damaging and it was like inviting death".[10] Let's see, invocations of "kills people" and "death" yet he is pro-abortion... Logic is not one of Steve's preponderating faculties.

V. Flashfoward now to 2011, London, Ontario. Last January the London Free Press announced the speaking gig sponsored by the MFF.[11] The reporter, a certain Herman Goodden, perhaps amused by the whole affair, prefaces the article by indicating Steve was "selected by Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues, as one of the world's foremost feminists". Qualifiers, you know. Although denouncing MFF, Goodden finds Steve's work to be "commendable". Fellow LFP reporter Jennifer O'Brien was euphoric, referring to Steve as "one of Canada’s best orators"[12] Maybe she was having a flashback to her Tigerbeat reading days when Sean Cassidy was king. Even LFP blogger and dissident Catholic Kathy Rumleski offered congratulations to the MFF for its sponsorship. Poor thing, she deems the Church's teachings "frustrating", "sad", "I do not think I'm going to hell because I don't agree with everything taught in the Church".[13] Such a profound and singular theological cogitation! Further, just consider the adulations Steve's received after the February 16 speech: "...amazing energy ...very engaging ...Powerful. Phenomenal ...You're struck by his passion."[14] Surely, they must all be right. For goodness sake, the Sisters of St. Joseph in London were advertising Steve's talk. Sr. Margo Ritchie had the vapours:
There was controversy about Lewis's visit because he holds views on abortion that run counter to official Catholic teaching. Our challenges are too great and our potential too awesome to let our energy be drained away by focusing on differences. The fact that many on our planet, and in our city, struggle for daily survival needs to be front and centre for us.
Do you think Sr. Margo wears a habit? And lest we forget, the Prairie Messenger provides a link to The Stephen Lewis Foundation.

VI. Now it's not as if Steve doesn't have a history of commingling and confabulating with like-minded "professional Catholics". Go back to 2001 and observe that the Canadian Catholic Health Care Association (CCHA) invited him to be keynote speaker at its annual conference.[15] Apparently, everybody loves Steve. Nonetheless, the question must be posed as to why the MFF sponsored this anti-Catholic bigot. Obviously, apostasy and heresy are existent therein. An editorial at the Catholic Register, stating the MFF's choice as a "significant misstep", nevertheless claims that it "can be commended for almost three decades of achievement".[16] Achievement at what specifically? This is an assertion. It cannot be corroborated since it's based only on viewing the website, consisting of a scant five or six pages with no historical data on past sponsorships. What is interesting are the rationalizations proffered by MFF Executive Director Mary Anne Foster. A LSN report quotes her as saying:
Basically what we say is that even though he holds those views [anti-Catholicism, verbal attacks on B16], the Foundation doesn’t agree with them... No. We're not endorsing that... He is an expert on global health and Christians should be open to learning from him just on that level. He's only coming to speak here in London about poverty, children, and education. That's all he's speaking about... We've already told him that those are not up for discussion and they are not going to be part of any speech... If people have asked, we've, you know, basically what we're hoping is the same thing, that he's just here to speak on poverty, children, and educational issues. Most people are happy with that. Ninety percent of the people that have purchased tickets are Catholic.[17]
When you read statements like this, do you ever wonder who the hell these people are? What motivates them? How did they acquire their positions? The answer to the latter no doubt involves inserting one's proboscis up another's behind. However, this entire controversy is mere surface noise, a symptom of something noisome operative within. Accordingly, we now turn our gaze to the chancery office at the Diocese of London.

VII. After complaints about Steve's appearance were made to Bishop Ronald Fabbro, here is what Diocesan Gatekeeper Mark Adkinson said to the Catholic Register:
The bishop indicated that the choice was imprudent, but he verified that the foundation does not endorse Stephen Lewis' views on Catholic teaching, which they have stated publicly, and that they are solidly committed to their Catholic identity. Further, Stephen Lewis will not speak on any matter where he contradicts Church teaching.[18]
Thus it is confirmed that Foster, as quoted above (from a January 20 LSN report), was regurgitating triangulations originating from the chancery office (Adkinson's statement was given in a February 2 article). Wonder how that phone conversation went? Here, triangulation is not meant just in the political sense of being above and beyond a position. It is also meant in a mathematical sense. +Fabbro is a mathematician. He has Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Mathematics. Therefore his approach is not so much as an administrator than as a scientist, and a cool customer at that. Very important. Also noteworthy: he is a multi-decadal friend of fellow Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, CEO of Salt+Light TV. Watch the grandstanding here. Fabbro's half-assed response to the controversy, i.e. "the choice was imprudent", divulges cowardice and/or complacency on an issue necessitating strident outspokenness on the part of a bishop. But this is no surprise. He is, after all, a member of The Star Chamber. Given Steve's combinatorial anti-life/pro-abortion/antinomian stance, it is ironic (but really despicable) that Fabbro is a member of the CCCB committee for Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF), whose stated mission is "to build a culture of life and a civilization of love by promoting respect for human life and dignity and the essential role of the family". Somewhat at variance with Steve's worldview, wouldn't you say?

VIII. Party alignment in general is illustrated in how the Diocese responded to the Catholic press. Although Gatekeeper Adkinson offered time to comment for the Catholic Register, he refused speaking to LifeSite News when contacted. Moreover, Ian Hunter at Catholic Insight wrote about his concern of Steve's appearance both to Fabbro and MFF. No reply. Very telling. But this is not the end of the story. For there was another celebrity gala in +Fabbro's diocese on February 16, 2011. Same city. Same evening. Stay tuned for the sequel in the next post.


1. CI Staff, "UNICEF and Catholic Schools", Catholic Insight, April 2003, vol. XI, no. 4. LINK

2. A. de Valk, "The Assault on the Family", Catholic Insight, September 2007, vol. XV, no. 8. LINK

3. N.J. White, "Michelle Landsberg, Stephen Lewis speak in Toronto", The Toronto Star, February 11, 2008. LINK

4. See N. Klein, No Logo (New York: Picador USA, 2000). This is Klein's most famous book. Praise for it from the Guardian and the Socialist Review says enough.

5. S. Lewis, Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa (Toronto: House of Anasi Press, 2005).

6. Lewis attempts to justify HIV reduction by male circumcision in this video. A countering position can be found in Doctors Opposing Circumcision: HIV Statement, "The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection". Includes many references to the scientific literature. LINK

7. "Pope Replies to Questions from Journalists", Vatican Information Service, March 18, 2009. LINK

8. I. Hunter, "Catholic foundation sponsors talk by Canada’s leading Catholic-basher", Catholic Insight, January 2011, vol. XIX, no. 1. LINK See also A. de Valk, "The Pope on condoms and the AIDS crisis", Catholic Insight, May 2009, vol. XVII, no 5. LINK

9. "Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa", Catholic News Agency, March 21, 2009. LINK

10. D. St. Pierre, "Pope's message will kill people, says Stephen Lewis", The Barrie Examiner, 2010 (exact date not indicated). LINK

11. H. Goodden, "Lewis, Catholic Church odd bedfellows in local speaking gig", London Free Press, January 29, 2011 (last updated). LINK

12. J. O'Brien, "Lewis lightning road", London Free Press, February 4, 2011. LINK

13. K. Rumleski, "Congrats to the Monsignor Feeney Foundation for inviting Lewis", London Free Press (blog), February 4, 2011. LINK

14. K. Dubinski, "Lewis speaks out on global poverty", London Free Press, February 17, 2011. LINK

15. A. de. Valk, "Scandal in Hamilton", Catholic Insight, June 2001, vol. IX, no. 6. LINK

16. "The wrong choice", Catholic Register (editorial), February 9, 2011. LINK See also P.B. Craine, "Canada’s largest Catholic paper slams Stephen Lewis invite", LifeSite News, February 10, 2011, LINK

17. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Catholic group hosting abortion advocate Stephen Lewis knew about his views", LifeSite News, January 20, 2011. LINK

18. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Ontario Bishop: Stephen Lewis talk for Catholic group 'imprudent'", LifeSite News, February 2, 2011. LINK


11 February 2011


I. It seems EWTN always has had a tough time making inroads up here in the Great White North. In the 1980s and most of the 1990s, this highly successful Catholic broadcaster, started by that most wonderful and longsuffering nun Mother Angelica, was only available outside the United States on shortwave radio via its station WEWN Global Catholic Radio, broadcasting from Birmingham, Alabama. Listening required the purchase of a specialty radio able to tune in to frequencies outside commercial AM/FM bands as the broadcast ranges of the latter are restricted to just hundreds of miles. Yet in 1997 when EWTN first applied for a television broadcast license its application was rejected by the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission). At the time, the communication regulator's policy disallowed non–Canadian single–faith licensing. The prominent Canadian religious broadcaster during the 1990s was the "multi–faith" channel Vision TV, whose programming can be characterized as a kind of New Age syncretism. Road blocks against EWTN were even being erected from within the Catholic Church. Sr. Stephanie Vinec, CSJ, former president of the Association of Roman Catholic Communicators, evoked this disqualifier:
It's not just a matter of not wishing to work as a team with Canadian producers. It's a question of basic theology. Canadian Catholic producers have worked in the tradition set by our bishops after Vatican II... The Holy Father himself has urged the coming Church of the laity to prepare for the millennium in the light of Vatican II teaching. The renewal for the church for the new age depends on it... We have no assurance that EWTN would carry on the teaching of Vatican II in its fullness.[1]
With phraseology like the "coming Church of the laity", "new age" and "Vatican II in its fullness" it is a rather pedestrian task to identify the agenda Sr. Vinec was attempting to uphold. Nonetheless, a broadcast license was eventually approved, very likely to the dismay of Sr. Vinec and her fellow "professional Catholics", as B16 might phrase it. EWTN has been available in Canada for over a decade now, via three of our major television providers, namely Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications, including a suite of smaller outfits. Reportedly, EWTN was experiencing "explosive growth" in 2006.[2] I assumed this ascending trend continued to the present day...

II. That is until coming across an item on my Twitter news feed last week. A CNS tweet was reporting that Bell Canada will drop EWTN from its programming schedule this February 27.[3] It appears that LifeSite News was the first to report on the story, on January 27.[4] The Catholic Register had an article four days later on February 1.[5] Quoting from the LSN report:
A representative of Bell told LSN that the removal was done because it "will free up bandwidth for new and more popular channels". The representative said that there would be a "repackaging" with other channels "similar to EWTN", but did not have information about what the "similar" channels would be. EWTN told LSN they had asked Bell TV to reconsider, but were told the decision to drop them was final.
The Register article, referring to EWTN (with evident aversion) as a "conservative, American Catholic TV service", provides these e–mailed remarks by Bell spokeswoman Marie–Eve Francoeur:
EWTN had a low viewership and Salt + Light (Canada’s national Catholic television channel) is a strong alternative. This channel capacity is needed for new and high–demand channels... Bell must continually make programming choices and adjustments to match consumer demand with the channel capacity we have available. Channels with very low viewership or subscriber totals, such as EWTN, are removed to free up capacity for more popular programming.
Another e–mail was received by Bell TV subscriber and blogger Vox Cantoris after making an enquiry to Bell. Here is an abstraction from the message by a "Clients Customer Relations Associate":
Please note that Salt & Light, a popular Catholic television network, remains available on Bell Satellite TV. Bell must continually make programming choices and adjustments to match consumer demand with the channel capacity we have available. Channels with very low viewership or subscriber totals, such as EWTN, are removed to free up capacity for more popular programming.[6]
Brady Grant, EWTN marketing manager for Canada, mentioned this to Bell:"You will be the only major carrier or provider in North America that doesn’t carry us".[7] Very telling. So how could this be? Why is Bell Canada's decision "final" in dropping EWTN? Besides the reasons provided, has another factor been overlooked? Is there something else heretofore unseen which hides itself by its very obviousness?

III. Now let's break it down. Three main points are given so as to justify removing EWTN from the channel line–up: (i) low viewership/subscribers, (ii) freeing up of bandwidth for more channel capacity, thus permitting for more high–demand programming and (iii) an emphasis on Salt+Light TV as a "strong alternative" for a Catholic channel in Canada. Let's examine these...

IV. MediaStats, a consulting firm that collects and distributes data and information on the broadcast and cable industries in Canada, provides some interesting numbers. In its March 2010 compilation of the "Number of TV subscriptions for Digital Specialty Channels", EWTN had 154,471 subscribers (1.3% of total).[8] The list also indicates that 17 channels had even less viewership than EWTN (less than or equal to 0.2%). Most of these were multilingual stations of which at least five channels are offered by Bell.[9] Interestingly, Salt+Light TV had 144,388 (1.2%) subscribers, less than EWTN. It is well to remember that these statistics represent all of Canada's television providers. The big three, namely Bell, Rogers and Shaw, likely have the biggest share in subscribers and it would not be unreasonable to assume (roughly) an equal division (by three) in total numbers. Moreover, Bell provides TV principally via satellite, meaning that access (with a dish) to satellite is direct, uninhibited by location, not bound by (land–based) underground cable jurisdictions or telecommunication tower ownership.[10]

V. Exact subscriber numbers are hard to gauge. According to the Register article, EWTN claims a Canadian viewership of 500,000. However, neither EWTN or Bell Canada are supplying data on the those specifically subscribing to Bell. Going back to January 27, 2006 (coincidentally, 5 years ago to the day of the breaking LSN report about Bell/EWTN), in a ZENIT interview Fr. Thomas Rosica, CEO of the Salt+Light Catholic Media Foundation, claimed 100,000 viewers for Salt+Light "in a little less than three years", from its 2003 start–up, "and the number of subscribers is growing".[11] Recall, as quoted above in a 2006 LSN report, EWTN was concurrently experiencing "explosive growth". Accordingly, the abovementioned information strongly evidences that viewership for EWTN in Canada either surpasses or is at least equivalent to that of Salt+Light TV. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Mother Angelica and her team constitute a telecommunications superforce with extremely high demand on a worldwide basis, irrespective if the broadcast format is television, radio, internet or their variations. And all of this is done exclusively with financial support from viewers, unlike Salt+Light TV (we will return to this important aspect in a moment).

VI. Logically, then, this question must be posed: Why is it that, due to "very low viewership", Bell Canada is only dropping EWTN from its programming when the data evidence that Salt+Light TV has an equivalent or even lower viewership, thus warranting its elimination as well? Perhaps there is a special need for a Canadian Catholic television station. In that same ZENIT interview Fr. Rosica addressed this very subject, that is, the uniqueness/specificity of Salt+Light TV relative to EWTN: "We view our efforts at Salt and Light as complementary to those of EWTN, but we are also responding to specific needs and complexities of the Canadian Church".[12] A rather innocuous statement. Fair enough. This blogger also recalls seeing Fr. Rosica in a cordial TV conversation with Doug Keck, EWTN Executive Producer, circa 2006. It intimated a friendly relationship between the two Catholic broadcasters.

VII. But a few years later, in 2009, the dam broke. In a blog post on the controversy surrounding the public funeral of abortion enabler Senator Ted Kennedy (a dissident Catholic), Fr. Rosica accused "well–known colleagues in Catholic television broadcasting and media in North America... to be not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence".[13] Reference here was being made to coverage/commentary of the affair by Raymond Arroyo at EWTN. An unexpected and shocking outburst that was, with many unsubstantiated allegations levelled against pro–lifers. Even Archbishop Raymond Burke got in on the action.[14] Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that a palpable tension exists between Salt+Light TV and EWTN in the present day.

VIII. Now Fr. Rosica's antagonism with EWTN is not entirely unexplainable. Firstly, note that he is member of the Episcopal Commission for Communications for the CCCB. In other words, he is a main spokesman for The Star Chamber which, most of us know, is not comprised of the most faithful of bishops, and that is an understatement. The status quo, apostasy and heresy are rife therein. The Canadian bishops have been in de facto schism from Rome since they issued the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, and I am not the only one to make that observation.[15] In an analogous way that the USCCB attempted to hijack EWTN in the late 1980s[16], the boys at the CCCB weren't exactly ecstatic that Mother Angelica was coming to town, which is echoed in the statement by Sr. Vinec quoted at the outset. Secondly, it must be emphasized that Salt+Light TV is not, shall we say, "orthodox Catholic" in its commentary and current affairs programming. As Fr. Rosica's good friend John Allen, Jr. approvingly said: "Salt and Light under Rosica, have positioned themselves firmly in the Catholic middle"[17]... whatever that means. Simply stated, Salt+Light TV is not, nor is modelled after, Mother Angelica's EWTN. It is underwritten, à la Fr. Rosica, by the CCCB and is financially supported by... well, now we come to the Invisible Man.

IX. John Allen, Jr., "one of the world's leading Vaticanistas"[18] according to Fr. Rosica, wrote that there is "nothing wrong with asking where a group that takes positions on public policy gets its money, and how that funding might influence its judgments".[19] Allen was referring to battle between LSN and Fr. Rosica during the Kennedy fiasco, but I think we can also apply that statement to Salt+Light TV. Note that heavy hitters are on the S+L Board of Directors. They include: Venterra Realty Management, Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Incorporated, Clearwater Capital Management Incorporated, Diamante Development Corporation, Carpe Diem Growth Capital, CPI Card Group and UCS Forest Group.[20] Quite an ensemble of the business glitterati: presidents and CEOs of a real estate company, a grocery store chain, a condominium development corporation, capital management firms, a high tech plastic card manufacturer and a consortium of lumber importers/exporters.

X. But the big boy on the block, in terms of financial support for Salt+Light TV, is St. Joseph Communications, whose CEO, quite the superstar in the Canadian business community, is also Chair of the S+L Board of Directors. SJC is Canada's largest privately owned marketing, printing and communications company. Recalling Allen's remark about "how... funding might influence... judgments", it is revealing that SJC founder Gaetano Gagliano can regularly be seen in conversation with Fr. Rosica on Salt+Light TV from 6:30–7:00 pm or 5:30–6:00 am Monday to Friday (see schedule here). This program, entitled In Conversazione con Gaetano Gagliano, has been rebroadcast for years and I still haven't figured out its purpose, except as a venue for Rosica and Gagliano to extol their virtues.

XI. "But what does all of this have to do with Bell Canada dropping EWTN from its programming line–up?", the reader may be enquiring. The answer is very simple. Leaving aside the Salt+Light/EWTN enmity, know that Bell Canada is a client of St. Joseph Communications. The screen shots below outline recent work conducted by SJC for Bell:
XII. Once again this question is put forward: Why is it that, due to "very low viewership", Bell Canada is only dropping EWTN from its programming when the data evidence that Salt+Light TV has an equivalent or even lower viewership, thus warranting its elimination as well? Is Salt+Light TV exempt from this (proposed as a "strong alternative") because of Bell Canada's business relationship with St. Joseph Communications, whose CEO is also the Chair of Board of Directors of the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation? Is there a conflict of interest here? Is there an investigative journalist out there looking for a story? Check it out... See what's going on.


1. Quoted in "Why was EWTN turned down?", Challenge, October 1997, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 8. Subnote that former CBC/CTV TV national newsreader Larry Henderson (1917–2006) was managing editor of this Canadian Catholic periodical. More importantly, he was also editor at the Catholic Register from 1973–1986. For a brief bio of Henderson's life see Fr. L.A. Kennedy, "Larry Henderson: Journalist", Catholic Insight, November 2002, vol. x, pp. 14–15. LINK

2. "Catholic Network EWTN's Explosive Growth in Canada", LifeSite News, March 22, 2006 (author not indicated). LINK

3. CNS News Briefs, "Canada's Bell TV plans to drop EWTN from its digital satellite service", Catholic News Service, February 3, 2011. LINK

4. M. Millette, "Bell ExpressVu will no longer carry EWTN in Canada", LifeSite News, January 27, 2011. LINK

5. See M. Swan, "Bell drops EWTN from digital service", Catholic Register, February 1, 2011. LINK

6. Click here for the e-mail message/post regarding Bell Canada.

7. Quoted in M. Swan, op. cit.

8. The MediaStats website can be found here. A PDF document of the statistics used in this article can be found here.

9. According to the Bell Canada channel line-up (as of October 6, 2010) these channels are: Tamil Vision, ATN Tamil Channel, ATN B4U Movie Channel, ATN Alpha Punjabi and ATN Commonwealth Broadcasting Network. The Catholic Register article (note 5) further states that Bell will be dropping "some other channels with low viewership".

10. Just recently Bell began providing television through underground fibre optic lines. It is unclear as to whether or not EWTN will be available on this system in the future.

11. "Evangelizing Through TV in Canada", ZENIT, January 27, 2006. LINK

12. Ibid.

13. T. Rosica, "Senator Edward Kennedy’s funeral: On mercy and misery", Salt + Light Television (blog), September 3, 2009. LINK See also J.-H. Westen, "Battle of the Catholic Stations: Salt and Light's Fr. Rosica Rips EWTN's Raymond Arroyo over Kennedy Funeral", LifeSite News, September 4, 2009. LINK

14. Burke (now Cardinal and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura) responded to Fr. Rosica in the Romanita manner: "One sees the hand of the Father of Lies at work in the disregard for the situation of scandal or in the ridicule and even censure of those who experience scandal". An article adapted from this talk can be found at Abp. R.L. Burke, "Reflections on the Struggle to Advance the Culture of Life", Catholic Culture, September 2009. LINK

15. "Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, PSS (1918-2007), one-time head of the Committee of the Family and later President of the Council for the Family, expressed more than once the opinion that those Canadian bishops who supported the Winnipeg Statement were in schism". See Msgr. V. Foy, "Recovering Humanae vitae in Canada", Catholic Insight, October 2010, vol. xviii, no. 9, pp. 8–14. Msgr. Foy provides an overview of the Winnipeg Statement and its scandal in "Tragedy at Winnipeg: The Canadian Catholic Bishops' Statement on Humanae vitae", Challenge, vol. 14, 1988. LINK

16. See R. Arroyo, Mother Angelica: The Remarkable Story of a Nun, Her Nerve, and a Network of Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 2005), pp. 166–179, 208–216.

17. J.L. Allen, Jr., "Incivility hurts the pro–life cause", National Catholic Reporter, September 11, 2009. LINK

18. Administrator, "Covering the Vatican and the Church: John Allen’s lecture in Toronto", Salt+Light Television (blog), October 1, 2010. LINK

19. J.L. Allen, Jr., op. cit.

20. Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation, "S+L Board Members", Lampstand, Spring 2010, p. 10.


02 February 2011


An ongoing analysis of subtle and/or blatant heresy/apostasy advocated by the Canadian Catholic Mainstream Media

Today's Lesson: Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather (Matthew 24:28).

PRAIRIE MESSENGER. A few delightful stories to report regarding this Fabianist outfit from the Flatlands. First and foremost the earth shattering news that Archbishop James Weisgerber has signed a pledge against bottled water.[1] Thrilled this blogger was upon hearing the announcement. Why the folks at CNN didn't have a newsflash on this item is a mystery. Such dastardly people, they are. Reportedly, Sparkles has decided to support Development and Peace's campaign against bottled water. He signed a "campaign card pledging that he would not drink bottled water where public water is available". Now the first thing that popped up in my head upon reading this glorious news regarded D+P's involvement with this issue. Why is money from the collection plate wasted on silly things like this? Aren't they supposed to be facilitating abortion social justice in the "Global South"? Incidentally, "global south" is a contradictory phrase, but we're talking about D+P hippiecrats here so we'll let that one pass. Nonetheless, it's good to know that Sparkles has set his priorities aright by standing up against those nefarious corporations: "There is a reason why companies sell bottled water and that reason is profit", states the article. Gosh, we wouldn't want that to occur. Like totally, we wouldn't want the economy to run n'stuff. Plus, it's better to leach from the suckers in the pews. Perhaps Sparkles overlooks the fact that, in disaster situations, bottled water has provided relief to those who suffered after the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina. After the Haiti earthquake, it was the military that efficiently distributed bottled water to the victims and corporations that produce bottled water donated millions in assistance. These insightful observations were made by Steve G at the SoCon or Bust blog. He further noted: "if you ban bottled water from 'normal' consumption (i.e. non–emergency situations) you'd essentially put those companies out of business. Consequently, when a disaster strikes, you wouldn't be able to fall back on those companies to supply those millions of white–and–blue bottles". So would Sparkles re–evaluate his priorities if becoming aware of this economic reality? Naaaahhhh. He's got more ethereal matters of concern, like receiving major awards. God forbid he speak out on important issues, like the pro–life cause. That Sparkles... what a guy. Yet maybe we should forget the abovementioned. Instead, just look at those happy faces. That photograph more than compensates for the farce. As Mr. Roarke used to say: "Smiles, everyone! Smiles...". Indeed, sir, indeed. Though it's still not time to depart from Fantasy Island. A few months ago PM issued an article by Jocelyn Rait, member of the Catholic Network for Women's Equality: "the issue of women's equality in the Roman Catholic Church will not be cooling down any time soon".[2] Apparently, Ms. Rait is upset that Maryknoll priest Ray Bourgeois was excommunicated for protesting in favour women's ordination, to Rome no less. One wonders why PM International News Editor Peter "Novocaine" Novecosky permits such heresy to be published? The logical deduction is that he consents or else is just plain numb to the issue. An open question, it seems. In other news, a certain Joan Eyolfson Cadham, "an oral storyteller with professional status", provides a penetrating analysis of the recent Koran–burning controversy in PM's "Around the Kitchen Table" column (see her inset photo). Now I am oblivious as to what this Viking princess has been consuming in the kitchen. Whatever it is, her judgement evidently has been impaired as a consequence. She chose an easy target like Pastor Terry Jones to disguise the fact that the proposed building of a mosque at Ground Zero was not as offensively in–your–face as when compared to some fundamentalist who "was going to set the planet on fire by burning 200 copies of the Qur'an".[3] Perhaps she has a crush on Tariq Ramadan. Finally, there is a review of a book and film by Canada's most famous atheist nature worshipper, namely David "Wild Man" Suzuki. Canadians know: this person (yes, that is an actual photograph). According to the PM scribbler, Suzuki's "vision is 'catholic' in the best sense of an all–embracing universality and emphasis that humans are spiritual beings who need love and community". Strange that that would be argued. I recall Suzuki writing this:
...the pope’s pronouncements to the impoverished masses of people in large parts of the Third World will cruelly worsen and condemn them to a life of squalor that will only worsen while hastening us all on a path of planetary ecocide. We must condemn the reprehensible and suicidal policy of the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to birth control. That is what I call an eco–sin.
How quaint... and don't forget to check out PM's links page for other goodies. There you can quickly click to The Steven Lewis Foundation, National Catholic Reporter and "Essays in Theology by Rev. Richard McBrien".

WESTERN CATHOLIC REPORTER. Perhaps some of you are aware that WCR website has recently undergone a facelift. This is an exciting development (at least for me) as that heretofore pasty yellow background/template at the site conjured up disturbing images of 1970s talk show set designs (don't get me started on the pink background at the Prairie Messenger, I'm very suspicious). Apparently, the redesign is part of a revamping process: "The WCR board of directors has launched a process to revision the mission and role of the newspaper in the light of the Church's call for a new evangelization".[5] Edmonton Abp. Richard Smith, VP of The Star Chamber, is overseeing the matter. The study is being undertaken by a certain Bryan Froehle of St. Thomas University in Miami Gardens, director of the Practical Theology program. Formerly, Froehle was Executive Director of CARA, acronym for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.[6] In the past he conducted work for The Star Chamber's brother conciliarists south of the border. Currently, he also works at firm called Essential Conversations, based out of Chicago. Its mission "is to support organizations that seek to build a better world. Our focus is on helping non–profit and faith–based organizations become... healthy and vibrant". Past clients include the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education. Grantocracy Alert! Getting back to WCR, there seems to be a concern that "many readers mistakenly consider editorial content to be actively endorsed by the archbishop as publisher". Now that statement is interesting. Why would WCR readers maintain such a view? Does the chancery office, ever in need of secrecy for the commission of the hippy aggiornamento, want to disassociate itself from the overtly leftist agenda of its allies at WCR? The claim for revision is "due diligence and proper governance... standard business practice". Still, something is going on here. Note that a readership survey formed part of WCR's "revision mission"[7] and its results on this particular issue, too, are interesting. Or, I should say, revealing:
Most readers (75 per cent) understand that the paper is sponsored by the archdiocese to serve the Catholic community rather than an "official newspaper" meant to always reflect the thinking of the archbishop on matters of the day, or to focus on letting people know about the work of the archdiocesan offices.
Does that statement seem confusing to you? Bureaucratspeak, it is. If WCR is archdiocese–sponsored to "serve" Catholics in the pews (the money source), why shouldn't Westerners be allowed to be informed on "the work of archdiocese offices"? Why cannot they be of "focus" every so often? Is there something to hide? Why the secrecy? As any Catholic who keeps apprised of Church political news knows, the chancery office is the root and source of all kinds of dissenting mischief. Again, something is going on here. Other revelations from the survey: the average reader's age is 61, 84%
of readers
"want to continue to read the newspaper in a print format" and "most expressed their highest satisfaction with Ron Rolheiser's work". Accordingly, there's a leftist–V2 baby boomer factor involved. Moreover, a miniscule 2% of readers view WCR online, evidencing that younger, tech–savvy Catholics effectively have no interest in WCR. Clearly, these statistics show that only graying social justice liberals are WCR orientated. But what happens when boomers and outmoded print media soon fade away? Will the upgraded website attract the kids? The hard data say negatory. The WCR Board of Directors must be very worried. No need to despair, however. For their viewing pleasure, TH2 embeds a most wonderful video for reminiscing purposes, most conducive to letting flow that nostalgia for the good old days. Indeed, it was a very good year.

NOVALIS PUBLISHERS. Like WCR, the Novalis' website recently has been "refreshed", according to Publishing Director Joseph Sinasac. I also notice this refreshment now admits funding support by the feds: "We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for business development activities". Good to know my tax dollars are being put to heretical use. In a recent internet message, Sinasac further informs us that Novalis acts as distributor for 20 international religious publishers, including the Marxists at Orbis Publishers. Nice. Strange is his claim that missalettes published by Novalis since the 1930s "represented the beginning of a publishing enterprise that has served the Church faithfully in many ways for three–quarters of a century". Well, I would reduce that figure by 40+ years to circa 1960s as Novalis' publications in recent years have been far from faithful. If not already, the reader might take some time to read a splendoriffic analysis of Novalis here. You are forewarned. Apostasy Joe's claim that Novalis has "served the Church faithfully" is, of course, a howler. But if I'm wrong, why has Novalis newly advertised James H. Cone's book A Black Theology of Liberation? Website descriptor: "Combining the visions of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., Cone radically reappraised Christianity from the perspective of the oppressed black community in North America". Hmmmm... something isn't right here. Maybe we should let Cone speak for himself:
The white man has brainwashed us black people to fasten our gaze upon a blond–haired, blue–eyed Jesus! We're worshiping a Jesus that doesn't even look like us! Oh, yes!... The blond–haired, blue–eyed white man has taught you and me to worship a white Jesus, and to shout and sing and pray to this God that's his God, the white man's God. The white man has taught us to shout and sing and pray until we die, to wait until death, for some dreamy heaven–in–the–hereafter... while this white man has his milk and honey in the streets paved with golden dollars here on this earth![8]
Ah, yes, it's whitey's fault. Does Novalis' distribution of Cone's book (let alone the rest) evidence that Sinasac endorses this over–the–top Marxist–based racial Christianity? Both JP2 (in 1984) and B16 (in 2009) have explicitly censured liberation theology.[9] A few months back I saw Sinasac on Salt+Light TV's Perspectives program. He seemed a mild mannered fellow. "Radical" did not come to mind. Still, why does he permit such blatant heresy to be disseminated? Could it be that the position of Publishing Director is merely symbolic, without real control, and that fruitcakes behind the scenes are running the show? Is it publicity and prestige? Or maybe he just doesn't give a rat's ass? Regardless, I now have this picture in my head of Fr. Gutiérrez laughing uncontrollably from the heights of some Peruvian mountaintop. Qué passe?

CATHOLIC REGISTER. As per usual, shenanigans continue to eventuate at Sinasac's old outfit. Yet some of the credit for the analysis below goes to investigations[10] conducted by Fr. Alphonse de Valk, the hero priest marginalized/ignored by the Canadian Catholic MSM (Fr. de Valk is editor/founder of Catholic Insight magazine, Canada's best. Subscribe here). Let's first give some context: For some time homosexual activists have been making headway into Catholic school curricula. One example relates to the bureaucratic busybodies at the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), which grovels before the pro–abortion labour unions. Fr. de Valk mentions a December 12, 2010 article by Sheila Dabu Nonato in the Catholic Register entitled: "Gay teacher's network aims to recruit Catholics", wherein we are told, with a morally neutral undercurrent, that an openly homosexual teachers group has been created to "reach out" to Catholic schools so as to provide a "safe environment" for students with homosexual tendencies. Turns out that OECTA is a "partner" of Egale Canada, "a national organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans–identified people and their families across Canada".

Another article on the same date has the title: "Catholic boards' denominational rights will trump provinces' equity strategy". A rather self–assured sounding title. By either obliviousness or committing the sin of omission (the Register is very good at the latter), the piece states that "all is well in Catholic schools". Then this incongruous statement follows:
When it comes to asking questions on sensitive information such as sexual orientation, school boards' hands are tied by the Ontario Human Rights Code, which prohibits employers from enquiring about this type of information.
How can all be "well" when the school boards' hand are "tied"? Everything is fine, according to the Register, don't you worry. Move along, nothing to see here. This shrewd wordplay was on display again with an editorial just a few days ago. Some background first: The Halton Catholic District School Board recently reneged on a policy banning "alliance" clubs between homosexuals and heterosexuals (Why not use "straight"? Okay, then let's use "warped" for the homosexual antonym. Is not "unhappy" the opposite of "gay". You see? Precise language matters). HCDSB gave in after an outcry from activists. It also helped that one of the boards' trustees is a sodomite. LSN gave full coverage of the affair.[11] Pathetic was the stance of the Ontario bishops. Speaking on their behalf, Toronto Abp. Thomas Collins issued this statement:
The bishops of Ontario agree with a January 13, 2011 Globe and Mail editorial when it says, "It is not for the Church, by itself, to run Catholic education in Ontario"... There are numerous partners involved in the formation of our young people, all playing critical roles in the educational journey... In our publicly funded Catholic schools, however, as bishops it is our role to help to weave the thread of faith in our schools by offering guidance, as well as pastoral leadership and support, to our partners in Catholic education on a host of issues relating to the faith foundation of our schools.[12]
Oh my, what a disappointment this Collins has turned out to be. A dud. Taking advice from the Globe and Mail? You're kidding? Right? With flowery phraseology like "educational journey" and "weave the thread of faith in our schools" it appears that his canonist advisors have got the hots for Lonergan's Aquikantianism. Now let's go transatlantic and check out what the boys in Rome have to say on this subject:
...it is for the Church to establish the authentic contents of Catholic religious education in schools. This guarantees, for both parents and the pupils themselves, that the education presented as Catholic is indeed authentic. The Church identifies this task as its own, ratione materiae, and claims it for its own competence, regardless of the nature of the school (State–run or non–State–run, Catholic or non–Catholic) in which such teaching is given. Therefore, "The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever are subject to the authority of the Church... It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it". (TH2 italics)
If the abovementioned is too complex to apprehend, or if the Commodore 64 disallows access to the Vatican's website, then perhaps it would be a good idea for Collins simply to refer to the Catechism[14], that is if there is even a copy down there at St. Michael's chancery office. Maintaining the party line, the abovementioned editorial at the Catholic Register leads off with this Politically Correct title: "Schools are Tolerant". Notice: this is a headstrong assertion. The editorial is so conniving that fisking is necessitated [TH2 analysis in bolded square brackets]:
Last November the Halton Catholic District School board passed an equity policy that explicitly banned gay–straight alliances.[which was consistent with Catholic teaching]. Following an outcry from gay activists [i.e. homosexual fascistas to whom liberal Catholics cower], a new board of trustees [including a sodomite who hid his activist agenda] cancelled that policy and replaced it with one that, although making no mention of gay–straight alliances [i.e. sin of omission] was widely interpreted as an endorsement of the controversial after–school clubs and a victory for those who would see Catholic values trumped in schools by secular morality.[Is the CR editorial staff ignorant to the fact that a gateway to further permissiveness has been opened? Apparently.]

If that were indeed true [yes, it is true], it would be a sad day for Catholic education [sad, indeed]. The primary role of trustees is to be faithful guardians of the morals and values that are the bedrock of Catholic education [...and they have failed, big time]. So what happened in Halton? [a bloody catastrophe, that's what happened]

For starters, despite media interpretations [what about "interpretations" from orthodox Catholic commentators?], the board has not approved gay–straight alliances.[be specific, they are fearful of confronting opponents from an authentically Catholic perspective] It replaced the policy that banned the clubs with an interim one that still allows the board to ban them [how convenient, avoid the issue, such a lovely thing procrastination is], although it remains unclear if that will happen.[come on, nothing will happen so long as scaredycats are on the board of trustees]

Halton has joined several other Ontario jurisdictions in adopting the so–called Catholic template policy drafted last year by the Ontario Education Services Corporation in consultation with [oh no...] Ontario bishops and Catholic educators.[...and lo!, the apostasy continues afar and unencumbered] That policy meets requirements for schools to proactively promote tolerance, equity and inclusiveness.[how nice, in a Oprah Winfrey sort of way] While the government endorses gay–straight alliances [i.e. immorality], it recognizes the constitutional right of Catholic boards [wink wink] to stay faithful to Catholic teaching [indeed, a sucker is born every minute], and therefore the government proposes [i.e. enforces] gay–straight alliances as an option, not a requirement.[if CR believes that, then may I ask what is your favourite Kool–Aid flavour: Looney Lemon or Goofy Grape?]

So, as it stands, the government policy is in alignment with the position adopted in Halton [ROFLMAO!] and supported by the [spineless] bishops [what a surprise] even though there is disagreement on gay–straight alliances.[i.e. bishops do not uphold Catholic moral principles, due to complacency and/or cowardice] For that matter, Halton’s November policy also conformed with the positions of the government and bishops.[that matters not now, the repeal changes everything]

The Church gets a bad rap on this issue.[primarily, it is the Ontario bishops who should be criticized] The government enacted its equity policy in 2008.[unfortunately, due to Premier McGuinty, nepotist, antinomian, lapsed Catholic] Many Ontario Catholic schools, following recommendation by the bishops in 2004 [they are not there to recommend, but to "regulate", see above], put policies in place years before that to create learning environments that strive to be free of bullying and harassment – for all students.[the Catholic ethic as such, heck, the Second Commandment, prohibits these; a confusion of being with behaviour]

Catholic schools have been at the forefront of promoting tolerance and charity.[how "spirit" of Vatican 2ish] So it is grating [tough, drink a glass of milk, have a cheese sandwich] when educators and Church leaders are themselves objects of derision, called homophobes among various slurs, because their strategy for combating intolerance differs from methods preferred by activists and others who seem blind to the irony of advancing their own beliefs through bullying.[CR fails to understand that the homosexual lobby is becoming increasingly domineering, where Catholics are cast as villains unless they comply to its dictates, not "recommendations". Any backlash of harsh words from Catholics are a result of frustration after realizing that the bishops and so–called Catholic media outlets are the "useful idiots" of this lobby, due of their Oprahesque "tolerance", lukewarm faith and desire to be accepted in the secular world]

There are lessons to learn from this episode.[now CR starts to condescend the reader, we're right, you're wrong] Educators must never waiver in promoting the distinctive religious values of Catholic education.[they already have waivered and continue to do so] Also, along with the bishops, they need to be better communicators to counteract the misinformation that makes tantalizing headlines [good job LifeSite News, keeps fighting the apparatchiks] and, ultimately, could threaten the very existence of publicly funded Catholic education.[Catholic education has already gone down the tubes in Canada, hence the emergence of homeschooling]
So there you have it [BREAK]... This just in: LSN is reporting that "gay activists are targeting the St. Clair Catholic District School Board in an effort to launch a gay-straight alliance at one of the board’s schools".[16] Thank you very very much, CR editors, for all that you do.

DEFUNCT/ALLIANCES. Catholic Insight is reporting that the Atlantic Catholic (Antigonish, NS) and the Catholic Times (Montreal, QC) are ceasing publication. These closures are part of an emerging trend in Canada. With the challenges now being posed by the new media, diocesan papers/outlets and "centres" for social justice now have to compete. After decades of not having a rostrum to express/disseminate their views about the terrible state of affairs in the Church today, Catholic (mainly orthodox) news/commentary websites and bloggers are presently coming into the forefront. Although old school print outlets (defenders of the status quo party line) are shutting down, the strongest of the remaining agencies are forming alliances and combining forces as they themselves transition over to the internet so as to counteract the new kids on the block. One example: the Catholic Register and the B.C. Catholic just recently embedded Salt+Light TV videos into their websites. There is a war on the horizon and all signs indicate that it is going to be vicious. I will be addressing this subject in detail in a future post.


1. M. LeMaître, "Weisgerber signs water pledge", Prairie Messenger, January 11, 2011. LINK

2. J. Rait, "An issue that won't cool down in autumn", Prairie Messenger, September 15, 2010. LINK

3. J.E. Cadham, "History has proven that all it takes is one fanatic", Prairie Messenger, September 22, 2010. LINK

4. G. Schmitz, "An appeal for dialogue, for the love of this planet", Prairie Messenger, November 3, 2010. LINK

5. G. Argan, "WCR to 'revision' mission of the newspaper", Western Catholic Reporter, September 20, 2010. LINK

6. CARA also operates the blog 1964. LINK

7. G. Argan, "Raise your voice in deciding the WCR's future", Western Catholic Reporter, November 1, 2010. LINK; R. Baier, "Readers give strong response to WCR Survey", Western Catholic Reporter, December 27, 2010. LINK

8. Quoted in S. Kurtz, " 'Context,' You Say? A Guide to the Radical Theology of Rev. Jeremiah Wright", National Review, May 19, 2008, vol. LX, no. 9. pp. 28–36.

9. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation" (Libertas nuntius), August 6, 1984. LINK In a December 2009 address to Brazilian Bishops, Pope Benedict reminded them of the Libertas nuntius Instruction, stating the "theses and methodologies" of liberation theology have Marxist origins: "Their more or less visible consequences, of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, anarchy are still being felt, creating amidst your diocesan communities great pain and a grave loss of living strength... deceitful principles of liberation theology...", etc. Cf. "Pope Warns against 'Deceitful' Marxist–Based Theology to Brazilian Bishops", LifeSite News, December 8, 2009 (author not indicated). LINK

10. See A. de Valk, "Bowing Before Idols", Catholic Insight, January 2011, vol. XIX, no. 1, p. 3; A. de Valk, "The Enemy Within: Subverting Catholic Education", Catholic Insight, January 2011, vol. XIX, no. 1, pp. 25–28.

11. P.B. Craine, "SHOCK: Ontario Catholic board voting to repeal ban on homosexual clubs tonight", LifeSite News, January 11, 2011. LINK; P.B. Craine, "Catholic school board votes to abandon Catholic teaching on homosexuality", LifeSite News, January 12, 2011. LINK; J.-H. Weston, "Ontario bishops to schools: use anti–bullying programs faithful to Catholic teaching", LifeSite News, January 17, 2011. LINK; P.B. Craine, "Canadian Catholic school board 'bullied' into scrapping pro–family policy", LifeSite News, January 19, 2011. LINK

12. Quoted in P.B. Craine, "Evangelicals disappointed at lack of Catholic leadership on homosexuality push in Ontario schools", LifeSite News, January 26, 2011. LINK

13. Congregation for Catholic Education, Circular Letter to the Presidents of Bishops' Conferences on Religious Education in Schools, sec. III, paras. 13–14. LINK H/T to Socon or Bust for the link to this document.

14. Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 2242): "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directive of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demand of the moral order, to the fundamental rights or teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community" (cf. Matthew 22:21).

15. "Schools are Tolerant" (Editorial), Catholic Register, January 26, 2011. LINK

16. P.B. Craine, "Catholic 'safe schools' policy recommends homosexual youth hotline", LifeSite News, January 31, 2011. LINK