"In the News" - 3/9/23 Raw

Father Bill Weary and Judy Dezogatis discuss upcoming events at Only Family Radio, including a fundraising dinner with speaker Kevin Riley. They also mention a 103-year-old nun who is a chaplain for the Loyola University Ramblers basketball team. The hosts then discuss Cardinal McElroy and other bishops' views on giving communion to LGBTQ individuals and the divorced and remarried. They reference Paul's letter to the Corinthians and St. Thomas Aquinas' views on the Eucharist. The conversation also touches on the debate over capital punishment and abortion. Welcome to In The News Show. I am your host, Judy Dezogatis, and I'm here with my co-host, Father Bill Weary. Welcome, Father Bill, and welcome to all our listeners. Thank you, everybody. Nice to be here. Good to be here as well. I just want to thank Joe Novosinski for being our technician today, and also for David Hillowitz, who always provides our theme music. I want to mention a couple of things that are coming up here at Only Family Radio. We will be having our fundraising dinner on Friday, April 21st, at the Sheridan Harrisburg Hershey, and you can reserve a spot. They are $100 per person. It is a big fundraiser for us. We're going to have a great speaker, Kevin Riley. You can read all about it on our website at 720whyf.com. It will tell you how to make reservations and send your money in, and we would appreciate to have the place filled. So, if you're thinking about a night out and a great speaker and to help out Only Family Radio, that's the place to be on Friday, April 21st. Be sure to get your reservations in by April 6th, Thursday, April 6th. So, anyway, let's get started with our show. I like this little clip. We were talking – this is actually in the Catholic Witness. We have a 103-year-old nun who is a well-loved chaplain for the Loyola University Ramblers basketball team. Wow. I had heard about this, and then in our Catholic Witness, this past – the Diocese of Harrisburg Catholic Witness, that was mentioned. And I think, Father, you had maybe done a little bit of research on her, and you have some information to share with us. Well, I just – an article that ran from the Associated Press in one of our local newspapers spoke about her, born in 1919. Wow. She was – she recalls the building on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, recalls crossing over when it opened in 1937. And she's just very loyal to Loyola, and they love her. She's fantastic, and she told the Associated Press, quote, I love life so much and enjoy being with young people. They're the ones who keep me going because they bring such joy into my life, and they keep you updated on what's happening on the world, unquote. She's in a wheelchair all the time, and she's at the games, you know, as many of the games as you can make, and she's a dynamo, just keeps going. So kudos, kudos to her. And that's always a great way to start off a show with a nice story like that, and a woman full of energy, 103 years old. I hope I have that much energy just like, you know, when I turn 60. Anyway, moving on, I know you have some information on this, Father, about Cardinal McElroy and Bishop Paprocki giving communion to active LGBTQs and divorced and remarried. And then I also think there was some information also that Cardinal Raymond Burke chimed in about not giving out communion to those ineligible. Would you share with us what you found regarding these statements? Well, Cardinal Robert McElroy, Bishop of San Diego, California, came out in an article in America Magazine recently. Just the whole thing, the whole agenda of the regressives, it's just incredible regarding permission to communion, giving communion to those who are in active LGBTQ relationships, active same-sex relationships, and to the divorced and remarried. And Father Thomas McElroy and a few other bishops as well have called him out on that, for which I am grateful. And that takes a lot of courage, honestly, to do that. But they're reminding Cardinal McElroy of things he knows already. But in terms of to the third-party observers, the regular Catholics who are observing and reading about and watching the argument, it's very instructive to be reminded that the Eucharist has always been exclusionary. It's very inclusionary for those who are in a state of grace, sanctifying grace. But from day one, year one, there's always been an exclusionary aspect to the Eucharist. All the way back to 1 Corinthians, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, saying that a man should examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup, lest he eat and drink judgment unto himself. Again, Paul speaking of sacrilegious communions and the need to be out of the state of mortal sin in order to receive communion. And that heretics, adulterers, you know, sodomites, et cetera, will not be admitted to communion. I keep saying over and over again the Church accepts all people but not all behaviors. And in so many words, Paprocki and Bishop James Connolly of Lincoln, Nebraska, Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, they're the ones the most outspoken in these areas have spoken about that. And I got a quote from Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas, I think it's from the Summa, that an article quoted in regard to this argument about, you know, that as the Pope has said in a very misleading fashion, that the Eucharist is not for, quote, not as a prize for the perfect, but as a source of healing for all, unquote. And that's very misleading, but McElroy and those of that school of thought have quoted that a lot in support of their positions. Listen to what Aquinas says about that from the 13th century. Quote, every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise, baptism and penance are purgative medicines given to take away the fever of sin, whereas this sacrament, that's the Eucharist, is a medicine given to strengthen it. It ought not to be given except to them who are quick of sin, unquote. As usual, brilliant. And I use that a lot, that same analogy that the Eucharist is a medicine, but medicines can be counter-indicated to, quote, the medical term. That you can't give a – you have to give a medicine under the correct circumstances. If it's given improperly or it's the wrong type of medicine, it might be good in one circumstance, medical situation, but it could be disastrous. That same medicine given to somebody for whom it's not appropriate, their condition, it might react against the medicine. And so, too, while the Eucharist is medicine, that's true, it can only be given to those who are in a state of sanctifying grace. And so it's bad medicine for those. And we do a disservice to them by giving them Holy Communion. Those are – and I'm talking about the divorced and remarried and second marriages without a previous annulment and convalidation, as well as those in, well, active sexual relationships outside of matrimony, matrimony being between a man and a woman. And so we have to hold to the line on that because that's perennial doctrine going all the way back. It cannot be changed. Cardinal McElroy and others like him think that it can be, that it's time to move on, but no, that has to be – and I'm grateful for bishops who are speaking out about that. I have a question that probably our listeners have a question, too. You were talking about, you know, we get sacramental grace from the Eucharist. So if a person is in mortal sin, I have heard it, and I don't know where I heard it, it's probably from EWTM that says if you give communion to someone in mortal sin, and you might not know as a priest if they are or not, that it's like giving food to a dead person. It's not going to have that same grace effect that it would be if you were properly disposed. Is that – how do you – what are your thoughts? Of course, if we're in the state of mortal sin, grace is blocked. Grace is blocked, so maybe that's a good analogy. It doesn't do any good, but worse than that is it does harm also, being sacrilegious. But yeah, there's something to be said for that, that the floodgates of grace are open again with the sacrament of penance and absolution, obviously with a firm purpose of amendment on the part of a penitent not to commit the sin again or at least to try very hard to be determined not to commit the sin again. And so that's an interesting way to put it, certainly an arresting attention grabbing way of putting it, giving medicine to a dead person. So that's food for thought. Yeah, kind of just a book ending on what you were saying about denying communion or not giving communion to those in the state of mortal sin. Our friend, pro-LGBT Father James Martin is in the news again. Apparently in Florida recently, Governor DeSantis authorized a stay of execution for a criminal, and now he's kind of doing this little tit-for-tat thing saying, well, are you going to deny communion to DeSantis, who was a Catholic, unless he okayed a stay of execution or a death penalty for a criminal, but you don't want to give communion to those who support abortion. I mean, are these two things equal in terms of non-negotiables with regard to the faith? That's a very good question, and Cardinal McElroy is brilliant for bringing that up, and he's referring to the change in the catechism of the Catholic Church, which is, for me personally, a very disturbing change where – and I have to read the language, I don't have it in front of me – whereby capital punishment is absolutely forbidden and, you know, very seriously sinful to carry out this murder of the person. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always taught in the past that the state has the right to capital punishment. The state can waive that right. You can have a right and waive the right, so I'm not going to exercise this right, and that's okay for matters of prudence, and that's a position I could always support, that you still accord doctrinally the right of the state to take life, but here and now, maybe for interests of pro-life and to set a good example, we're not going to exercise that right. That's tolerable, but the pope has said no, an absolute forbidding of capital punishment, sort of taking that right away from the state. So Cardinal McElroy is invoking that, and he did some other things, too. But why don't we say, you know, domestic violence is mortal sin, you know, using those – I don't have them in front of me – several – oh, you know, defrauding laborers or, you know, inequitable pay to workers. Why don't we refuse communion to those employers? Why are we – his objection is that we're zeroing in on sexual sins as you say, non-negotiables, and there are other things, and I think that merits conversation. I think that we can talk about that, and I would say some of the things he brings up. I think domestic violence is personally, I would say, mortal sin, to haul off and hit your spouse. I would say that's a mortal sin, but it's not public. See, that's the thing. A lot of the sexual sins are public in terms of cohabitation, which is a public act. I've always said that. When you move in with somebody, that's in public. Divorce in a marriage, in a second marriage, that's a public act. That's out there, front and center. LGBTQ, you know, same-sex marriage, same thing. But as far as capital punishment goes, that's an ongoing conversation. And he's big on the development of doctrine. We've developed doctrine. St. Vincent of Laurent was the – St. Vincent Laurent, a deacon of the 4th century, I believe, first came up with the idea, picked up by Cardinal John Henry Newman in the late 1800s, a convert to the faith, a British cardinal, and he picked up on the development of doctrine. Both those writers, St. Vincent and John Henry Newman, say you have to be careful that it's through a development of doctrine and not a degeneration or a change of doctrine. The capital punishment thing, you know, should De Santis be refused communion, I think that's a – like, I'm going to keep saying it's an ongoing conversation. I would like more, you know, arguments on that. You know, my quick answer is no. He should not be denied communion for something like that. But that's – it's a brilliant move on the part of Cardinal McElroy in defending his position. Well, with that, we have to go to break. We'll be right back. Please stay with us. You're listening to Holy Family Radio 720 WHYF. We'll be right back. I'm going to get the slides. Okay. All right. I'm setting up for the next set. I'd like to talk about the Paris Hilton thing. Oh, yeah. Oh, that's horrible. And the Hershey's boycott thing. And then we have the – What's the Hershey's boycott? It was in the email about Hershey Canada is doing a pro-transgender campaign for Women's Day. They had a transgender man kind of talking about Hershey bars. Twitter went crazy. We'll get into that when we start. All right. Jim's getting – Joe is getting the signs because then I'll be showing you these. The two-minute, one-minute signs. Okay. All right. Okay. So we're going to – I'll start with the Paris Hilton thing then. I'm going to come back. You're going to start. I'll give you the point. Welcome back to In the News Show. For the second half of our show, we want to talk a little bit about something that was on White Site News. This was a little bit disturbing. Probably not surprising, but disturbing. Paris Hilton says that she has frozen 20 boys via in vitro fertilization as she waits for a girl. This is, like, unbelievable. Wow. Even for Hollywood, I think. 1984, this is the novel, like the novel 1984 or Brave New World. We're there. We're there now. Yeah. She's – most people know her. She's a famous socialite, celebrity influencer in Hollywood. And so during the pandemic, they decided that she wanted to have children, and so they froze – her and her husband froze 20 boys that are currently in the embryonic stage. And to her knowledge, they're all boys, and she desires a girl, so she's going to try to go through this again. I think this makes a good talking point, not just because she's, you know, Hollywood and we know how the liberalism and the progressives can be in that particular area of the world, but it does have a talking point about IVF and why this is not an acceptable Catholic practice. Can you share with us just a little bit about that? Well, all I can say is I hope this is a wake-up call to the public of the madness of this sexual technology and the reasonableness of the Church's teaching that a child should be conceived within the marital embrace, within the body of the woman, of the mother. Biologically, that's sacred. It's not physicalism. Some will say, oh, that's just physicalism. You're overemphasizing the physical. Well, the physical and the biological are sacred, created by God, so there is a sanctity to that. Once you step out of the bounds – and, you know, the moral doctrines of the Church are like guardrails on a road, on a high road like Route 1 in California. I've traveled Route 1. It's beautiful. It's way above the ocean, rocky cliffs going down to the crashing waves. You've got to have those guardrails up or you crash, and that's what's happening morally here. The moral doctrines of the Church are not just to make people miserable but to protect life and to protect souls. So 20 embryonic boys, little boys, frozen. Now, what's going to happen to them? This is the problem with in vitro fertilization. This is a big problem that's either destroyed or frozen. You have multiple conceptions, and you pick out the one that you want. The rest are either discarded or in suspended animation like Paris Hilton is doing. I'd like to know what her plans are for those 20 boys. She has not said that she wants a girl. Another reminder that we don't have a right to a baby, actually, that people think you have a right to a baby. A baby is a gift. A child is a gift from God, and you cannot just apprehend this, you know, declare a right to a baby. So in any case, this is a horror story, and, you know, it's not that surprising. It's been going on. It hasn't been talked about that much. Pro-life lobby has been talking about it for a long time. The problem is IVF. IVF, we lament those who are infertile or having trouble with fertility. There are ways of getting around that that are moral. I don't have time to get into them right now, but they should be studied. It's not easy, but there are moral ways of doing it that respect the marital embrace. And she was baptized as Paris Hilton, I just read, is a baptized Catholic. Oh, I don't think I even knew that. Okay. I thought I read that. I don't know if she was raised in the faith or not. That I do not know. But this is lamentable, and we can only hope there's some resolution that respects the lives of those children embryonically. The other part to the article I think was also disturbing was that she did have, excuse me, had one of the babies via surrogate. I have to cut that one out. Via surrogate. And, you know, as she waits for this girl. That's mine. Thank you. Sorry. So she did have one via surrogate, and then because, and the reason why she did that was because she fears the pains of childbirth. Oh, brother. Because she can't imagine herself actually pregnant, so she looks at all these different ways to have children without actually having to go through not only the physical conception part of it, but the physical delivery. That's a problematic thing, and I just had my first, in 38 years of priesthood, just had my first bride-to-be about a year ago come in. And we always ask the question, because it pertains to the validity of the marriage, there has to be an intention to have children. A lot of people don't know that. But in Catholic theology, for the marriage to be valid, there's certain things, there's certain criteria that you have to have in place in your heart and mind. To be faithful, to be married just to the one person. And the other one is you have to intend to have children biologically. It does not rule out infertile couples exactly, as long as they still intend to have children. But the first time I had a bride-to-be say to me, I asked the question, do you intend to have children? And she said no. And whoa. I had to make a call. I've never had that before. And her reason was a fear of pain. Fear of pain. So I called the – but she said she intends to adopt. So – and she said she might change her mind on that. So I had to call the diocese and get some consultation from the tribunal. And it's funny, the head of the tribunal actually had to call around the other diocese to get consultation on his part on whether or not we could go through with the wedding. It seemed to be an invalidating circumstance, and they decided to go ahead because she does intend to adopt. And the language is to intend to have children. And it actually doesn't say biologically. Well, that was the usual understanding. So we went ahead with the wedding. But a fear of pain. So that's Paris Hilton as well. That's amazing. That's not the first one I've heard that. I've heard that amongst people that have actually said that to me. And I thought, okay. You know, that's interesting. Interesting reason. But hopefully that – she'll come to terms with that in her marriage. And, you know, sometimes people go to adopt and they end up having biological children of their own. Sometimes. Anyway. So moving on, we do have something that might affect us a little bit locally. This actually happened in Hershey, Canada. And the title of this from my site news is that Hershey's faces a boycott after an ad with transgender man promoting Women's Day chocolate bar. So it's been, I think, International Women's Month this month in March. And this took to Twitter, of course, called Boycott Hershey. And in the article it says, Hershey, Canada, which is the Pennsylvania-based chocolate company's Canadian branch – so I guess it's coming out of corporate in our local Hershey – used transgender rights activists and gender-confused man, quote-unquote Fae, F-A-E, Johnstone, to promote a limited edition series of chocolate bars called Her, H-E-R, For, F-O-R, She, S-H-E, Her For She. Oh, my gosh. Which features Johnstone and four women on the bars wrapper in an attempt to celebrate International Women's Day. So all the Boycott Hershey people took to Twitter and all the conservatives and even feminists are reacting to this saying that, you know, boycott the candy company for doing this. And as I said, this happened in Canada, but I don't know if the directive came out of the corporate in the local Hershey, you know, corporate situation here in Central Pennsylvania. But that's really something. As a kid, a Central Pennsylvania kid who was – and you're probably yourself as well – went to Hershey Park, you know, multiple times in the summer. It was so family-friendly. And Disney's going the same direction, correct? That's right. Yeah. Walt Disney and Milton Hershey, as we say, rolling in their graves with the direction that their companies are going, which were very family-friendly. And now this is, you know, getting into the zeitgeist, as we say, the German term, the spirit of the times. G.K. Chesterton said, he who weds the spirit of the times will soon be a widow or a widower. In other words, the spirit of the times will abandon you and will turn against you and you'll be left alone. But in any case, yeah, this is also lamentable. And it's this kind of pressure that's causing church leaders to cave because it seems so pervasive. And it seems like the way to go. And I'm just reminded of a quote from 1 John, the first epistle of John. I don't have it exactly right. I don't have it in front of me. But he used the word progressive. John does. 1 John. And he says, those who are so progressive that they are progressing themselves, something to that effect, right outside of the truth are, you know, not going to inherit the kingdom of God or something like that. Very impressive passage. I'll try to get it for next show, the exact quote. And he warns against progressivism. John does. And here we go. And so the church leaders have to stand up to this stuff, this context that is so inimical to the faith. Yeah, something related that I don't have the article in front of me, but I know this is something that was on Fox News is there's a lot of companies that are supporting all of these different transgender and think policies that people might not even be aware of. And I guess we have an obligation as Catholic Christians to either, you know, pull away from that, like, for instance, if you have Disney stock, or but a lot of companies, well known companies, Cole, McDonald's, Bank of America, Amazon, you know, some are more obvious than others. But, you know, we have to be aware of this. This is happening, not just I mean, I don't have a desire to go to Disney. So that doesn't affect me as much. But I certainly patronize some of those companies. And now I've got to think about it again. Well, you have to think about it again. And it's an area, it's an undeveloped area of moral theology. I would welcome more writing and commentary on that from the, especially from the Orthodox standpoint, and that is our investments. What are our, you know, personally, myself, you know, I have a portfolio, we're allowed to as diocesan priests, religious order priests, I don't believe can, they can't have, they cannot have their personal portfolios and because of the vow of poverty, but we can and I do. And I said to my investment advisor, you know, I'd like, you know, moral, I've not really pushed it a lot. But I said, you know, I want moral investments. But it's an undeveloped area. And what are our responsibilities? How far does it go? It's a many headed hybrid, the world of investments. You know, there's so many indirect impacts when you invest in a company, and it could be, you know, two or three or four layers down the line where the questionable, where the company is involved in a company, which is involved in a company, which is involved in an abortion, you might not be able to detect that. And, you know, to do that kind of research is admirable. And some of the pro-life groups do, and I can point out, for Nike as well, you know, I wore, I was wearing a Nike sweatshirt once, and around the parish, you know, I'd taken a run or something, and my pro-life person said, oh, you're not supposed to be buying Nike products. I said, oh, really? And she said, yeah, because they're involved in, you know, they invest in pro-abortion activities and pro-choice activities. I didn't know that. So more direction from the bishops and from moral theologians would be welcome on my part. Well, that's going to do it for us today, Father. If you could give us a blessing to send us on our way. May Almighty God bless you all. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Okay. So we have to decide next time. All right. Sure. A couple of weeks. Let's see. This has worked out really well. Yeah, once we got it started. Yeah. It's a little connecting everything, but yeah. This is good. This is good. Monday, March 20th. Yeah, that's fine. Which time is good in the morning? Can we do morning? 11 a.m. Okay. We'll stick with that. Okay. All right, then. Thank you very much. Okay, Father. All right. Thank you. Okay. Oh, this is Judy. Judy. I didn't think to mention it, but next time. Raymond Burke, along the lines of what we talked about, came out with a brilliant book entitled... It's a very small paperback. It's only 60-some pages. Entitled, Deny Holy Communion? Question mark. It's brilliant. Okay. It just puts everything together, canon law and scripture, about the appropriateness of a... I should have mentioned it today, but I did not. So maybe we can work that in next time. Yeah, I think you mentioned it in the original one you sent me. And we just went over McElroy and we went over Paprocki, but we didn't get to him. So, yeah, we can include that the next time if you like. Yeah, I think this Paprocki-McElroy thing is going to be an ongoing thing. Yeah. I don't think it's over yet. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Father. Bye-bye. All right. Bye-bye. It stopped recording, right? Yep. Oh, my hair is good. And then end the meeting.