Parents Who Need Our Prayers


I have just learned that at Tynong Corpus Christi a student there asked about the Masses being held in the Tynong Hall. Father replied to the effect that people attending there have wandered away; the priests who say Mass are committing a sin of disobedience; Bishop Williamson has a personality conflict with Bp. Fellay; If Bp. Williamson came to the Tynong priory, they would turn him away.

After giving this summary to the class I learned also that a copy of an old Angelus dated July 1988 was so different from what is being said today and that it became obvious why the priests at Tynong never mentioned the Consecrations Anniversary or anything else from the past. "Just keep silent and the truth will slowly disappear".

The following extract is from the heading, "College Ethos" Philosophy of the College

In keeping with the government requirements (Education and Training Reform Act 2006) the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:

Elected government.
The rule of law.
Equal rights for all before the law.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance.
Kathleen Donelly, Admin. "Donkath"



Chapter 4 : Declaration on Religious Liberty: ‘Dignitatis Humanae’
Author: Father Schmidberger in a Booklet printed by the SSPX 2007.

Let us now have a look at the question of religious liberty, the Declaration ‘Dignitatis Humanae’. What does Catholic doctrine say about this subject? It says that there is only one God, maker of all things, one Jesus Christ, one Church and that this Church and this Jesus Christ must be recognised by every creature, each and every individual and also by the social bodies: families, schools, states, etc.

They must recognise Our Lord, by bringing Him into their constitutions, their laws, their lives. This means that all countries, especially those with a majority of Catholic citizens, should officially recognise Our Lord and His Church as the only religion and put limits to the public manifestations of other religions. You might say that it is unacceptable and terribly unjust for the state to restrain other religions.

I will give you some examples of analogy in the moral sphere. If someone wants to commit suicide, has the state the right to prevent him from doing so? Yes it has. Has the state the duty to prevent him? Yes. If someone wants to have an abortion, has the state the right to prevent her from doing this? Yes. Has it the duty to do this? Yes.

Now, these other religions are spreading their errors, harming souls. They are even dissolving, in a certain manner, the social order of the state. So, why should the state not have, under certain circumstances, the right and even the duty to put restrictions on these other religions?

This was the case, for example, in the Spanish constitution before the Second Vatican Council. In a first paragraph it was said: "In Spain, the Catholic religion is the religion of the state". Second paragraph: "Nobody in his private life will be in any way embarrassed because of his belief". Third paragraph: "In public life, only the religion of the state has a right to be presented". This helped, a lot, to protect the faith of Catholics.

This is precisely what the Islamic world is doing in our day. They are establishing Islamic states and it is very difficult to live there as Christians. So what they do towards the furtherance of error, why don’t we do for the truth?

Our Lord does not reign any longer in our parliaments, in our constitutions, in our courts, in the affairs of our governments. He is put on the same level with the other religions in the constitutions, in the life of the social bodies. This is exactly what the Second Vatican Council has asked and demanded, that no religion should be hindered from spreading its errors, that every religion is to be treated with equality before the law.

Listen to what the Council says on this subject:

"This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom." (No. 2)

So, religious freedom would be a natural right! This has always been rejected by the Church.

"This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs." (No. 2)

Up to this point, we can and must agree. In fact, the Church has always said that nobody can be forced to embrace the faith. Faith, by the way, is an interior act. But what follows is completely new.

"Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly". (No. 2)

That’s the question: can anybody be hindered from openly spreading his false religion, his false ideology or can he not? He can and he must be in certain circumstances.

This unlimited freedom, this liberty, gives way to an unlimited freedom of conscience, of opinion, of the press and even in moral matters. This gives the reasons behind, for example, the whole story of abortion, which has reached incredible figures now. The people who introduced it argued like this: no one is forced to have an abortion, the law simply removes some restrictions and thus freedom is given. But that is precisely the crime: no law can give anyone the right or freedom to have an abortion.

That’s exactly what Pilate did when he made the people choose between Barabas and Our Lord Jesus Christ. You have the freedom: whom do you want: Barabas or Christ? Abortion or no abortion? A false religion or a true religion? It does not matter! Source

How does the above compare with the present-day Philosophy of the SSPX College?