So much research and effort has gone into this series! It definitely needed to be written and is so professionally done. Randy Engel has provided enough information for any investigations to be pursued. Hopefully the hierarchy will READ it. Thank you for writing this story. See all 5 reviews. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers.
Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. Set up a giveaway. What other items do customers buy after viewing this item? Customers who viewed this item also viewed. There's a problem loading this menu right now.
“Those Who Receive You Not”: The Rite of Wiping Dust Off the Feet
Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free delivery with Amazon Prime. Back to top. Get to Know Us. Amazon Payment Products. English Choose a language for shopping. Length: pages. Word Wise: Enabled. Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled. Page Flip: Enabled. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. Sell on Amazon Start a Selling Account.
AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. Father Miceli was a masterful debater. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Yes, blasphemy is par for the course for the Homosexual Collective. It is also par for the course for conciliarism and its apologists, which have derived so much inspiration from the heresy of Americanism, critiqued so thoroughly and irrefutably by Mrs. Engel in her book.
Engel's section on Americanism must be read by every serious traditional Catholic. There are far too many traditional Catholics, priests and laity alike, who have convinced themselves that the false foundations of the United States of America are not harmful to the life of the Church and thus not injurious to the salvation of souls. Although my own Christ in the Voting Booth has a chapter that reviews briefly the history of opposition to authentic Catholicism on the part of many American bishops, Mrs.
Engel's two chapters on the subject are detailed and riveting. No one can read these chapters and contend thereafter that the framework of the American constitutional regime, to which Baltimore Archbishop John Carroll, the first bishop and archbishop of the United States of America, sought to accommodate the Catholic Church.
No one can read these chapters and not be convinced of the fact that, as Pope Leo XIII noted clearly in Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, , that the American ethos of religious indifferentism and cultural pluralism helped to teach Catholics to view the events of the world and of the Church naturalistically, coming to believe that the Faith had no relationship at all to the conduct of national life. No one can read these chapters and not see how the Americanist paradigm that is so praised by Benedict XVI is responsible in large measure for the latter's oxymoronic support of "healthy secularism.
Indeed, the "AmChurch" desired by John Carroll and the Americanists who populated a good portion of the hierarchy was a model for the counterfeit church created by conciliarism. It was the Americanists among the bishops and clergy in this country in the Nineteenth Century who paved the way for the conciliarist notions of ecumenism and religious liberty.
The moral corruption of the clergy that has come into full view in the past few years but had been reported for a long time in some Catholic publications was in large measure, although certainly not entirely, the result of the gradual corruption of the Faith in the United States of America as its holy tenets were surrendered little by little to the exigencies of pluralism and religious indifferentism.
Especially important for the Americanist bishops was the desire for Catholics to "fit in" with Protestants and others, convincing Catholics that it was perfectly acceptable to be immersed in the anti-Catholic culture an uncritical acceptance Calvinist capitalism its resulting consumerist materialism, the belief that partisan politics, especially by means of a slavish attachment to the Democrat Party, would "save" the country and help Catholics "achieve success," the desire to let others "live and let live" in their false religions during the week while assisting at Mass on Sundays.
While individual converts were won for the Faith in the Nineteenth Century, most of the bishops and priests believed that that there was no need to Catholicize the country. Indeed, the reverse was true. Catholics had to be "Americanized," and we can see the devastation of souls that has taken place as a result of this Americanization. Here are some salient passages from Mrs. Engel's work concerning the early influences of Americanism on Catholics in the United States of America:.
Bishop Carroll enjoyed full centralized powers over all the territories, properties, parishes and priests in the United States. On May 12, , after implicitly rejecting the concept of a democratically elected bishop, Pope Pius VI gave the Baltimore group a one-time only dispensation to elect their ordinary. Father John Lewis was their first choice for Bishop of Baltimore, but he was too advanced in years, so the honor fell to Father Carroll.
He was selected on May and his appointment was promptly approved by the Holy See. According to Catholic historian Hugh J. Carroll held great stock in the virtue of religious tolerance. Unfortunately, religious tolerance is not a Catholic virtue. There are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the cardinal virtues fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance, but tolerance as a virtue is not to be found among them. And such an expulsion from the Church was always to be inflicted.
The Apostles considered false doctrine destructive as a wicked example. With weighty emphasis Paul declares Gal. Hertz's analysis of Carroll's deep admiration of the principles of the American founding, including separation of Church and State. The dominant idea in the mind of Bishop Carroll, who was as great a statesman as he was a churchman, an idea that has remained the inspiration of the Church, and has dictated all her policy in the last century. Bishop Carroll did not wish to see the Church vegetate as delicate as a delicate exotic plant.
He wished it to become a sturdy tree, deep rooted in the soil, to grow with and bloom wi the development of the country, inured to its climate, braving its storms, invigorated by them, and yielding abundantly the fruits of sanctification. His aim was that the clergy and the people should be so thoroughly identified with the land in which their lot is cast; that they should study its laws and political constitution, and be in harmony with its spirit.
Gibbons, pp. In harmony in the spirit of the separation of Church and State. In harmony with the spirit of pluralism. In harmony with the spirit of the belief that it was not necessary to convert the nation to the true Faith so that it became confessionally Catholic.
No, Mrs. Hertz or other anti-Americanists, including me, are not engaged in "special pleading" tailoring the facts to fit preconceived conclusions. But if [Americanism] is to be used not only to signify, but even to commend the above doctrines, there can be no doubt but that our Venerable Brethren the bishops of the America would be the first to repudiate and condemn it, as being especially unjust to them and to the entire nation as well.
For it [Americanism] raises the suspicion that there are some among you who conceive of and desire a church in America different from that which is in the rest of the world. Engel provides a very good summary of the battles between the Americanist bishops and the anti-Americanist bishops. The open opposition of the Americanist bishops to papal documents, such as Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, , condemning liberalism in all of its forms, including the separation of the Church and State, was quite blunt. In like manner, Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, , was openly opposed by several American bishops, including Archbishop Martin John Spalding, the Archbishop of Baltimore and a relative of the equally rabid Americanist, Bishop John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria, whose days ended in disgrace , who, anticipating Joseph Ratzinger's own opposition to the Syllabus a century later, said that it did not apply to the United States.
Engel's narrative on this matter shows the parallel between the spirit of Americanism in the Nineteenth Century and conciliarism in our own day:. Spalding sent a copy of his pastoral to Rome and requested a clarification, but reportedly received neither a clarification nor a rebuke for his widely disseminated statement. Unfortunately, wishful thinking never changes reality, and the unpalatable reality for the opponents of the Syllabus was that the papal bull was a universally promulgated document binding on all Catholics throughout the world, bishops included, and that the separation of Church from State and State from Church was explicitly condemned without exception by Pius IX in proposition 55 of the Syllabus.
Separation of Church and State not contrary to Catholic principles?
Pope Leo XIII made sure that the Americanist bishops understood that the American Constitution's separation of Church and State was indeed opposed to Catholic teaching, something he made abundantly clear in a passage from Longiqua Oceani, January 6, , that is curiously admitted by reflexive Catholic defenders of the American way:. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.
Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.
But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us.
The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal.
Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order.
- Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering!
- Life and Death in a Gay Parish by Randy Engel.
- Unleashing the Beast.
- “Those Who Receive You Not”: The Rite of Wiping Dust Off the Feet | Religious Studies Center!
- Season of Revenge.
- The Æneid of Virgil Translated Into English Verse by E. Fairfax Taylor;
But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes.
For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.
How can any traditional Catholic, including men ordained to the priesthood for the Society of Saint Pius X, fail to recognize that the sainted pontiff whose feast day is this coming Sunday condemned the very foundation of the American constitutional regime? Why be opposed to conciliarism at all if one embraces its very Americanist roots? Engel, therefore, does Catholics a great service by providing the factual evidence concerning Americanism's anticipation of the errors that have infected so many Catholics, including so many traditional Catholics, as a result of the ethos of conciliarism in the past forty years.
Engel pointed out that one of the chief Americanists, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul, Minnesota, a man who once praised public schooling in an address to the National Education Association, provided an unabashed panegyric to the joys of the American way that have so devastate Catholics in this country--and which were foisted upon Catholics in Cuba and Puerto Rico and The Philippines following the Spanish-American War in Lost on the defenders of Americanism in our own day is this reality: the full might of the United States of America was used to conquer Catholic lands and to send into those lands Protestant "missionaries" and Masons, both of whom proceeded to take souls out of the Catholic Church.
Ah, yes, the American way. Here is the context Mrs. With 14 archbishops and 61 bishops in attendance at the Third Plenary Council, Archbishop Ireland delivered a stunning opening address on the virtues of Americanism:. I am proud to do thee homage, and I pray from my heart that thy glory never be dimmed. Esto perpetua! Be ever free and prosperous that liberty triumph over the earth from the rising to the setting sun. Christ the King had been publicly dethroned by Archbishop Ireland with the blessing of Archbishop Gibbons in front of the entire American hierarchy.
Well, if anything, the dethroning of Christ the King was merely ratified by the American bishops. Our Lord's Social Kingship was first overthrown by Martin Luther, followed in rapid order by potentates eager to take advantage of his heresies in order to aggrandize themselves. The Constitution of the United States of America, as I have demonstrated consistently in my writing on this subject in the past decade, makes no room for Christ the King and for Mary our Immaculate Queen. Engel also documents that Cardinal Gibbons was not averse to giving scandal to the faithful by consorting publicly with theosophists and Protestants and Jews, saying not a word about the necessity of their converting to the true Faith to save their immortal souls:.
Despite this clear teaching of the Church for almost years, Gibbons promoted the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, a highly secretive and ritualized fraternal lodge that attracted a wide-assortment of Marxists, anarchists, and free thinkers and all around revolutionary and anti-clerical workers. The Knights of Labor was the precursor of the American Federation of Labor that attracted many Catholic workers and became a hotbed of Communism during the s and 40s.
After his ordination, Gibbons also committed himself to ecumenicalism. As Archbishop of Baltimore he repeatedly scandalized the Catholic faithful by preaching from Protestant pulpits, using a Protestant Bible, and intoning Protestant prayers. The groundwork had been established for aping the power of the Federal government itself within the Church: the creation of a national episcopal body that would come to be dominated by Modernist theologians of a decidedly leftist, if not Communist, political bent.
Although, as Mrs. Engel points out in The Rite of Sodomy , the creation of the National Catholic War Council, established to demonstrate the "patriotism" of Catholics in support Woodrow Wilson's unjust involvement of the United States of America in World War I, provided a vehicle whereby unseen, faceless bureaucrats would come to dominate the life of the Catholic Church in this nation, a mirror of what happened in the Federal government of the United States, especially during and after the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt March 4, April 12, Yes, the National Catholic Welfare Council did oppose birth control and took efforts to support family life and to oppose indecency in the motion pictures.
Nevertheless, the general thrust of the bishops' bureaucracy, which was unprecedented in the history of the Church, was to support leftist policies of the Federal government. After all, various Americanist bishops of the Nineteenth Century said that Mirari Vos and The Syllabus of Errors did not apply in our "enlightened" land of religious liberty and cultural pluralism and religious indifferentism.
Why should the American bishops consider themselves bound by Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno, , which stressed the principle of subsidiarity as opposed to massive government intervention in peoples' lives and his Divini Redemptoris, March 19, , which opposed Communism and forbade the provision of all assistance of whatever kind to governments run by Communists? Isn't the "American Church" an exception to all of this? Conspicuously absent from the majority of these statements were references directly related to the practice of the Catholic faith, specifically the Mass, the Sacraments, Scripture, vocations, the priesthood, converts, dangers of secret societies including Freemasonry, the missions, Mary, the Mother of God, the Saints, and traditional Catholic devotions such as Forty Hours Devotion and the Rosary.
The problem, of course, was that the Leviathan Secular State did not keep its part of the bargain. It was intent on seeking a monopoly in the field of education.watch
Tag: The Rite of Sodomy
It advanced a secular morality apart from religion. And the federal government, beginning with the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration, had declared itself to be the final arbitrator of sexual morality by using tax-funds to promote and finance domestic and foreign birth control programs and condom distribution in the military. In the strongly worded statement the hierarchy said that they were in favor of positive programs of social and economic development, immigration, and increased food production to alleviate demographic imbalances.
Up until the late s, the NCWC held the line on birth control and population control. However, by the mids this opposition had been severely eroded as is evidenced by the official attendance of Murder, Inc. Wade on abortion. Another factor in the weakening of the NCWC on the matter of birth control and population control was the pressure from major Catholic institutions of higher learning such as the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America and Georgetown University that had received massive infusions of money from the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations and were seduced into promoting Malthusian policies and programs at home and abroad.
Joseph Beasley of Tulane University in New Orleans, a birth control zealot with international ambitions wanted to start a birth control program for black welfare recipients in the northern counties of Louisiana. He was stymied, however, by State laws prohibiting the distribution of contraceptive information.
The negotiations took place at the swank Petroleum Club in Shreveport where Beasley hammered out conditions under which he would conduct his birth control program with Msgr. Marvin Bordelon, who had been authorized by Cardinal John Cody of Chicago to cut the deal for the bishops of the Catholic dioceses of Louisiana. Congress that the concept of national sovereignty was an antiquated idea and a hindrance to world peace. In , Bordelon left the priesthood. In the spring of the following year, federal marshals surrounded the FHF headquarters in New Orleans and the foundation was placed in federal receivership.
Eugene Wallace, an FHF official who turned states evidence, testified that Beasley had threatened to kill him with a shotgun if he Wallace took the stand against him! Thanks to Cardinal Cody, all of the American bishops were dragged into the Beasley quagmire. All were treated to a double whammy when Beasley joined John D.
By the end of the 19th century the American bishops had already lost their first great moral battle in the United States against civil divorce and remarriage. But it was not until the post-Vatican II era with the establishment of canonically-sanctioned episcopal conferences that Catholics witnessed the total capitulation of the American bishops as defenders of Catholic faith and morals to the anti-God, anti-life and anti-family forces of the emerging totalitarian State — the ultimate fruit of Americanism.
Just a brief review of Mrs. Engel's material will help to illustrate the extent of the problems that existed in its massive bureaucratic corridors in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council:. Louis and William Cardinal Keeler ever served as pastors, and even these served only for a very brief time. Quinn and Archbishop John R. In the realm of politics, it represented a quantum shift to radical liberalism and a new world-view of the Church and of Society.
It rejected the Thomistic social teachings of the past and embraced a new political-theology that held salvation and sin to be a collective rather than a personal reality. The history she provides is nothing new to those of us who have followed these issues and have reported on them over the years. The story of how the Archbishop of Washington in , the late James Cardinal Hickey, rewarded a homosexual priest, Father Michael Peterson, who died of AIDS, with a public celebration of his life at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew, attended by none other than the Papal Nuncio to the United States, then Archbishop Pio Laghi, shows the extent to which the American bishops, as part and parcel of the ethos of conciliarism, have minimized the horror of personal sins, including those involving unnatural vice.
Perhaps the most riveting chapter in The Rite of Sodomy is Chapter 12, "The Cardinal O'Connell and Cardinal Spellman Legacy," covering fully one hundred pages of text before another twenty-three pages of chapter notes. The chapter must be read in its entirety to understand the cesspool of clerical corruption that has exploded in full public view in recent years. Only a few vignettes from Chapter 12 will be provided here in order to demonstrate that the rot of the recent past has foundations in the corruption of the Faith in the soil of a pluralist nation, a corruption that enveloped the anti-Americanist William Cardinal O'Connell of Boston and a man he despised, the Americanist Francis Cardinal Spellman, who rose from being a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston to becoming the powerful Archbishop of New York from to An "open secret" is a secret hidden in plain sight.
There are at least two reasons for this. One, because they lived in an era when most Americans had no reference point by which they could recognize, discern and label homosexual behavior in the life of any individual, much less in the life of two Catholic prelates of so great a stature. Secondly, because, with few exceptions, Spellman and O'Connell were surrounded by individuals who had no wish to know. The media and the police, for their part, kept their silence. The only group that openly discussed Sepllman or O'Connell's sexual exploits with young men, in and out of the clergy, were their homosexual contemporaries and they never "outed" either cardinal while the prelates were alive.
But why should this "open secret" trouble us now for Cardinals Spellman and O'Connell dead for many decades. And if indeed these prelates were active homosexuals in private life, of what importance is it in relation to their public lives? Further, as per the title of this chapter, how could a prelate's perverse sexual appetites engender any kind of "legacy" at all, since it is supposed that homosexuals leave no heirs? There are those who have claimed that since celibate clergy do not have natural heirs, power within the Church must be seized if one is to possess it.
In the case of Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal O'Connell and other homosexual prelates named in this chapter, power was, in fact, handed down from above to other homosexual members of the Catholic clergy, not just for one but for multiple generations, with consequences beyond imaging. The late Reverend John J. Engel documents how Cardinal O'Connell, who was hated by the Americanist bishops, became unable to act against his own nephew, Father James O'Connell, who had married a woman in a civil ceremony in New York but had continued to serve as a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston, because of his own "double life" as an esteemed Catholic prelate and an active homosexual:.
And why did Cardinal O'Connell do nothing? Why didn't he simply remove James from office and quietly obtain a write of laicization from Rome for his nephew? The ostensible reason given by Cardinal O'Connell was that he wanted to protect James' parents and the entire O'Connell clan from scandal. And there no doubt was some truth to this claim for O'Connell took a very paternalistic view toward his family and was always attentive to their needs, especially their financial needs.
The real reason for O'Connell's silence and inaction with regard to his wayward clerical sprites, however, was perhaps more complex and carried with it dark overtones of illicit sex as well as the theft and embezzlement of church funds. Again, according to Fathers Doody and Mullen, the exiled Toomey [another priest mentioned in the chapter] told that that James O'Connell had "proofs of the cardinal's sexual affection for men. At the turn of the century, references to homosexuality were very rare in polite society.
They were so rare, in fact, that court stenographers often misspelled the word, homosexual, and juries involved in sodomy cases had to be instructed as to what the terms "homosexual" and "sodomy" meant. It is unlikely that the charges of same-sex behavior made against O'Connell were fabricated out of thin air. In early 20th century America, if a charge of sodomy was made against any cleric much less a cardinal, it was almost certainly true. This is not to say that O'Connell thought of himself as a homosexual.
Gredocuk: [NEbook] Free PDF The Rite of Sodomy - Volume V, by Engel Randy
He plainly did not. Homosexuals were effeminate and soft. They were "pansies" like "Franny" Spellman. O'Connell saw himself as the prototype of a man's man. There is no evidence that O'Connell's penchant for "unnatural vice" came up for official discussion although Pope Benedict XV would have, in all likelihood, been discreetly advised about the charge of moral turpitude against the cardinal.
On May 4, , Cardinal O'Connell met with the Holy Father and made the unfortunate error of lying to the pope by telling him the charges against his nephew were untrue. When the pope presented him with a copy of his nephew's marriage license and other documents, O'Connell was humiliated and shamed. Papers verifying James' excommunication were given to the cardinal and he was instructed to remove his nephew immediately as Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston.
In fact, James did not leave the Archdiocese until late November of The Americanist members of the hierarchy of wanted him removed from office. The pope contemplated "kicking him upstairs," that is, giving O'Connell a job at the Vatican that would enable him to save face, but the Curia, objected to the proposal. Still, O'Connell was not without his supporters at home, and in rome. Cardinal Merry del Val urged him to buck up, take courage, and go on the offensive. Driscoll informed Cardinal O'Connell that del Val had defended his old friend against "vile, dirty, unmanly stuff" that O'Connell's enemies had sent to the Curia as evidence against him.
Then, after the dust had settled, Cardinal O'Connell held on to Boston, but his authority and influence, especially among his peers, had been severely damaged. He never fully recovered from the effects of the dreadful scandals, but until his death on April 22, , he managed to put on a good show. Engel noted that one of the young priests who served as his Secretary in later years was a Father John Wright, who "later become a key player in the Boston-Springfield-Worcester homosexual network that was closely linked to the New York homosexual network created by Francis Cardinal Spellman to whom we now turn our attention" p.
The section on Cardinal Spellman is extensive. Apart from the evidence she has amassed about his immorality and how this influences the life of the conciliar church to this very day, the image that emerges about Cardinal Spellman is that he was singularly uninterested in the interior life of the soul. He cared nothing about matters of theology. He was an administrator and a businessman and a banker and a wheeler-dealer with the scions of Hollywood and the Democrat Party, especially President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although he was the Military Vicar of the United States, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York and thus entrusted with "the spiritual care of millions of Roman Catholic servicemen and women serving at home and abroad," he said nothing when Roosevelt ordered that condoms be stocked and distributed in the military:.
Yet during the Second World War, when President Roosevelt issued an order that required post exchanges to stock condoms and required quarter-masters including Catholic officers to distribute prophylactics, Spellman wa again silent. With the exception of one or two well-publicized attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics in New York City, Spellman tended to ignore the increased encroachment of government sponsored Malthusian programs at home and abroad.
He viewed the issue of population control through a political rather than a moral lens. This was in sharp contrast to his predecessor Cardinal Hayes who had fought the Anti-Life Establishment tooth and nail and won. That Cardinal Spellman was more than willing and able to compromise Catholic moral teaching when it suited him politically was amply demonstrated by the Puerto Rican birth control debacle of In the mids, Cardinal Hayes effectively squashed all attempts by the Roosevelt Administration to impose a Malthusian program of population limitation on Puerto Rico. Hayes, a master of "punishment politics," told FDR either to withdraw the birth control initiative his administration had started on the island or face the loss of Catholic vote in the upcoming election.
On September 15, , the "Grand Experiment" was put on hold. After Hayes' death in , the American hierarchy, including the Powerhouse in New York, began to take a more lenient position toward federal and private population control initiatives on the island, especially under the Eisenhower Administration from to With the repeal of the Comstock Law, and the massive influx of millions of U. The Puerto Rican bishops also had to contend with the loss of the traditional legal and political support they had come to expect form the American hierarchy.
In , the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.
When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U. One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions.
In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics rom voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts.
Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said. Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people.
You can view the latest Review magazine online, including selected articles and full online versions of the printed magazine. The featured speakers will talk about the Savior, his life, his mission, the Atonement, and his influence in our lives today. Attending the Easter Conference is an ideal way to prepare for the Easter season. This symposium is free to attend, and registration is not required. Daniel L. For the Latter-day Saint, much of our ritual experience is historically related, either formally or by tradition, to similar practices performed in past dispensations.
There are times, however, when the ancient practice and the modern version are not the same, either in actual performance or even in meaning. Belnap is an assistant professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.
Many ritual behaviors, particularly the formal institutional rituals more commonly known as the ordinances of the gospel, have textual counterparts in the scriptures that provide meaning for the acts. This may lead one to assume that ritual continuity—or the retention of both meaning and form from one time or place to another—exists across the dispensations. Yet just because the ritual behavior in one dispensation is similar to the ritual behavior of another does not necessarily mean that continuity exists. The extent to which such change takes place differs from one ritual to another.
To assume continuity is understandable, as it provides a means by which an affinity between the modern dispensation and older ones is established. But this does not mean that recognizing potential discontinuity between our ritual practice and previous ritual practices need be a negative experience; instead it can be one that edifies our appreciation and understanding of the ritual. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew — And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Yet this pared-down version is then followed by an extensive set of instructions to the newly called Seventy in chapter And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:. And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Luke — Predominant among all of the above texts is the motive as to why the disciples would dust their feet—the lack of reception experienced by the disciples in their various ministerial locations. Though the reason for the rite is clear within these texts, there has been no consensus among New Testament scholars as to the origin of the rite. Many associate this rite with rabbinic references that mention the need to be cleansed from contamination acquired while on Gentile territory.
Such an interpretation, while understandable, neglects other elements within these texts that suggest another origin, namely, rites associated with hospitality. Hospitality in the Old Testament. The Old Testament also contains examples of inhospitable behavior. In this instance, Lot shows proper hospitality by providing water for the washing of feet, but the town asks for the guests to be delivered to them without promising the guests safety. As we shall see, this account plays an important role in the New Testament instructions.
In the New Testament, rites of hospitality are often expressed in the teachings of Christ. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father. The concept of reciprocity used here to describe the consequences of hospitable versus inhospitable behavior reflects the real-life effects of hospitality where reciprocity is the foundation of the guest-host relationship. Immediately following the Last Supper, as recorded in John 13, Christ proceeds to wash the feet of his disciples. It is important to note that Peter is not saying that he does not need his feet washed, only that he desires that Christ not be the one to do it.
While the washing of feet is a sign of hospitality, in the New Testament the guests themselves or perhaps the servants of the host, not the hosts, wash the feet. It is likely that Peter feels that Christ may be shaming himself by doing the act himself. In fact, according to the Savior, the majority of the disciples were already clean. Moreover, the text implies that he washes the feet of Judas, who the author says is the one who is unclean. He then proceeds to answer, providing the disciples with an understanding of the proper relationship between the master and the servant—the one sent and the sender.
He does this by first acknowledging his role as Master, declaring the correctness of calling him as such, and then stating that if he as Master washes their feet, then they should do likewise to each other. Using language similar to that found in the texts about foot dusting, Christ then teaches that whoever received the disciples received him. In other words, Christ also speaks to the disciples who will go out and seek to be received by others. In fact, as one reviews John 13—17, hospitality and the attendant roles of guest, host, and servant act as a foundation to the entire discourse.
In many ways, the rite of wiping dust off feet may be thought of as the reverse of the foot-washing rite, utilizing the social institution of hospitality to provide the meaning behind the act. If the guest was sent by another and was therefore an emissary or ambassador, then reception could also include the message as well as the general needs. The instructions concerning the rite of wiping dust off the feet are part of a longer series of instructions concerning the hospitality offered to the disciple-missionary.
Thus the missionary was entirely dependent upon the hospitality of strangers for sustenance. These injunctions were then followed by the responsibilities the missionary had as a guest within the home. Both the Mark —11 and the Luke —5 instructions state that the disciple was to stay in the individual household that took them in until they left the place, and the Luke —11 instructions state explicitly that the missionary was to remain in the house, eating and drinking what was placed before them. It is within this larger context of hospitality that we are told that if the disciples were not received, then the rite would be performed.
Unfortunately, even with the larger context of hospitality, it is unclear whether the rite was given in response to a lack of physical hospitality or to rejection of the message. In terms of the rite itself, we know that it involves the removal of accumulated dirt from the feet, though it is not clear what exactly that entails. Assuming that Luke 10 implies that it is the feet that are wiped off, the rite, as described in the four Gospel texts, appears to consist of removing the shoe and wiping or brushing the dirt from the feet, most probably the sole.
In this, the rite functions like the hospitality rite of feet washing, as both are performed to remove dirt that one acquired by traveling. Yet whereas the latter is offered by a gracious host to welcome one into the home the receiving of the guest , the former is performed when one is openly rejected and the expected hospitality is not offered.
Because they were not received, they were not offered water for their feet, and thus the traveler is forced to clean their own feet without water. In this light, the positive reciprocity that one would expect from normal hospitality, including a blessing pronounced on the house by the guest, is inverted by performing the act outside of the proper setting of the home; thus negative reciprocity results as the inhospitality is returned in the form of a curse, by a rite that should have led to a blessing, but which now leads to condemnation.
That the rite may be associated with inhospitality is also reflected in the association of the city or household against which the rite is performed with Sodom and Gomorrah. While the apparent focus of the Sodom and Gomorrah account is the perverse sexuality threatened by the townspeople, the sexual violence may be understood as the manner by which the inhospitality took expression. Of course, one of the challenges of these texts is that they do not describe any actual ritual performance.
Instead they are what can be called prescriptive texts prescribing what should happen, not necessarily what did happen in reality. Though Antioch is not the only city in which Paul and his companions experienced persecution, it is the only city recorded in Acts to have officially expelled them from its environs. Thus, in Antioch of Pisidia, the two were not received and therefore performed the rite of wiping dust off the feet. In summary, shaking or wiping dust off the feet, as recorded in the New Testament, appears to be a rite that fits within a cultural continuum of hospitality and its attendant rites, particularly the washing of feet.
Because they have not been offered the opportunity to wash their feet as expected, the offended disciples were to respond to this inhospitality by wiping off their own feet without water. Unlike the New Testament texts, these do not provide different accounts of the same instruction, but instead are given over a two-year period five different times. As we shall see, the texts demonstrate an evolving understanding of the rite and its significance.
Section The first of these texts is in section 24 as part of the instructions given to Oliver Cowdery in July before he began his missionary work. But there are also intriguing differences. The first is the manner in which the missionary was to be received. None of the New Testament texts speak of reception needing to be in the name of Christ. While hospitality was still a social norm in the nineteenth century, in the Western world it was a Christian grace, due to the ubiquity of Christianity in terms of religious practice.
Another difference lay in the rites themselves, as it appears that certain hospitality rites, expected in the ancient Near East, were no longer practiced or expected. Moreover, hospitality by the nineteenth century did not necessarily mean semipermanent lodging as suggested in the New Testament texts. The reference also establishes the rite as a mechanism to cursing.
Though cursing is found throughout the scriptures, it is unclear what exactly cursing entails or what is involved in bringing a curse about. It is often associated with the sealing power, subordinated under the general principle that whatsoever one seals on earth is sealed in heaven. Draper has posited that cursing is ultimately done not through any explicit divine action but by divine withdrawal from a given society.
If such meaning is applied to this rite, the ritual is then one of separation in which the offending lack of hospitality will lead to separation from God, similar to the purpose of the New Testament rite. We have already seen that washing is not found in the New Testament texts, perhaps intentionally to highlight the inhospitality of the household or city.
While washing would fulfill the purpose of removing the dirt, it also creates ritual ambiguity in that washing often carries the connotation of moral or ethical cleansing, an aspect of the rite that appears to be missing from the New Testament form. As to the actual purpose of the rite, though it may seem obvious since the instruction is found within a larger set of instructions concerning missionary work, the changes in culture in terms of hospitality suggest that the anachronistic nature of the rite has more to do with establishing the relationship between the primitive church organized in the New Testament and the new dispensation opened by Joseph Smith, rather than punishing the wicked.
If this is the case, the ambiguities would be expected since the temporal and cultural differences would create some dissonance in the purpose of the rite. This new instruction is paradoxical. From the New Testament texts, it appears that the rite is to condemn or shame the offending household or town of not providing the socially recognized rites of hospitality.
Yet the text makes clear that the accused is never to know that the rite was even performed and thus the shame or public condemnation was not the purpose of the rite. By suggesting that the rite not be performed in public, not only is the offender not going to be offended, but it also provides some time and space between the performance of the rite and the offending event itself. Section — And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.
And you shall be filled joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them; And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house. Like other instructions in the Doctrine and Covenants, this one again addresses nonreception but unlike the other two also includes instructions concerning reception, specifically that the missionaries leave a blessing on the house that does receive them, instruction similar to that found in the Matthew 10 and Luke 10 references. The negative potential for a quick response is tempered by the next set of instructions, which lays out the responsibility of the performer.
We are told that the performer was also required to judge the household at the Day of Judgment. This understanding has the potential of instilling within the missionary reluctance toward frequent performance, and perhaps relegating the rite to occasional use. Another unique feature to this instruction is mention of the condemned as worse off than the heathen.
In the New Testament, the condemned are compared unfavorably to Sodom and Gomorrah, the two cities associated with inhospitality, thus connecting the inhospitable behavior of the household or town with the examples par excellenc e of inhospitality. The term heathen contrasts with believer. Thus, at least in this particular set of instructions, the rite is now associated with reception of the message and not hospitality, an important and striking change. Finally, we are told that when performed properly, the performer should experience joy and gladness.
Section —4. And whoso rejecteth you shall be rejected of my Father and his house; and you shall cleanse [wash] your feet in the secret places by the way for a testimony against them. Not surprisingly, there are a number of elements similar to the earlier sets of instruction as well as elements of innovation. Perhaps the most striking innovation in this instruction is emphasis of the act as an act of cleansing and lack of any mention of shaking or wiping the dust off the feet, the original element of the rite.
While mention of washing or cleansing the feet is found in four of the five Doctrine and Covenant instructions, the instruction in section 99 differs from the earlier references in that no mention is given of casting or shaking the dust off the feet. The absence of wiping or dusting and the substitution of washing for the purpose of cleansing suggests that the rite is no longer a response to a lack of hospitality, but functions to cleanse the missionary. What the missionary needs to be cleansed from is not exactly clear, but from the surrounding text here, and more specifically in the last set of instructions still to be discussed, it would appear that the washing functions as an absolving of further responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the particular household.
The similarities include no mention of the original rite, the dusting or wiping off of the feet; instead, sole focus is again on the cleansing nature of the rite. The private nature of the rite is emphasized and the physical separation between the performance of the rite and the geographical place of initial confrontation is again made explicit. Another twist given to the rite in section 99 is the allusion to Matthew As noted above, the instructions speak of reception and rejection, as we would expect with this rite, but the instructions then go on to declare that those who receive as a little child, receive the kingdom.
It is unclear whether individuals are to receive Murdock as if he were a little child, or if they are to have the same qualities of a little child when receiving the missionary. Christ declares that one must be converted and become as a little child; if not, one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. But section 99 gives the impression that the allusion refers not to the conduct of the believer but to the conduct of the nonbeliever. It is unclear whether the household is expected to be as little children in their acceptance of the missionary or whether they are to recognize the child-like nature of said missionary.
For instance, we know from his personal journal that Murdock was offered hospitality by extended family on this mission, though their reception of the gospel message was less than satisfactory. Thus there is ambiguity as to what is meant by rejection or receive. Though this reference comes before section 99 in terms of order within the Doctrine and Covenants, it was actually received in September of , one month after the instruction to John Murdock, making it the last of our Doctrine and Covenants instructional references for the rite of dusting off the feet.
It is also the most detailed of all the prescriptive ritual texts, both in the New Testament and in the Doctrine and Covenants, concerning this specific rite:. And whoso receiveth you, there I will be also, for I will go before your face. I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my Spirit shall be in your hearts, and mine angels round about you, to bear you up. Whoso receiveth you receiveth me; and the same will feed you, and clothe you, and give you money. And he who feeds you, or clothes you, or gives you money, shall in nowise lose his reward. And he that doeth not these things is not my disciple; by this you may know my disciples.
He that receiveth you not, go away from him alone by yourselves, and cleanse your feet even with water, pure water, whether in heat or in cold, and bear testimony of it unto your Father which is in heaven, and return not again unto that man. Nevertheless, search diligently and spare not; and wo unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony concerning me.
The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of the term disciple. Because this insight lies within a larger passage on missionary work, the reader may presume that a disciple, as defined in this section, may be a nonmember, but if this is the case, it is the only reference to disciple in the Doctrine and Covenants that does refer to nonmembers.
Related The Rite of Sodomy - Volume V
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved