Category: Church in Alaska


These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is the Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful.  Rev 17:14

Just who are these “elect”?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the “elect” are theologically equivalent to “chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favor, as set apart for eternal life.”  In the Old Testament, these are the Hebrews, the “chosen people”; in the New Testament, the elect are members of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ.

Lest we forget–and prosperity Gospel preachers notwithstanding–Rev Tevye reminds us that to be Chosen ain’t always a bed of roses:

Among Alaskans, Catholics are underrepresented; even the Catholic Anchor’s most generous 2015 estimate puts Catholics at 14 percent of the state’s population.

And yet, we have two Catholics for U.S. Senators: Dan Sullivan and Lisa “I Stand With Planned Parenthood and Archbishops” Murkowski.


Today’s statewide election features another two Catholics running for Governor: Mike Dunleavy and Mark Begich.

Dunleavy states that the most  important constitutional right “is the right to life, because if this right is not sacred, all other enumerated rights are meaningless.  Being pro-life is at the very center of my understanding of constitutional rights.”  Alaska Right to Life endorsed Dunleavy.




Begich, on the other hand, states that Alaska was “ahead of the curve” when it legalized abortion in 1970, and that, “as the only pro-choice candidate running for Governor, I will continue my record of fighting for women to have . . . the right to make their own health care decisions.”  Planned Parenthood endorsed Begich.

Guess which candidate spoke at a Catholic Church this past Sunday?

It is unclear to me whether Begich was merely speaking WITHIN the Sanctuary of St. Andrew Kim’s, or WITHIN AND DURING the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself.  It appears, however, that there are altar girls standing behind him.  These girls appear similar to the altar girls who assisted during Archbishop Etienne’s celebration of the Holy Sacrifice depicted on the Archdiocesan website:

Begich’s political appearance at St. Andrew Kim’s is scandalous on a number of levels.  First, Begich has very publicly, and very steadfastly, adhered to a pro-abortion position.  This contradicts the inalienable right to life, as enumerated in CCC 2273.  “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.”  Such public support for abortion is, arguably, “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

Second, per Canon 915, those persons who have obstinately persevered in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.  Whether Mr. Begich is one of these unfortunates is left to the judgment of the local ordinary.  Please pray for Begich, and for our local ordinary to intervene for the salvation of Mr. Begich’s soul.  [NB: Of course, in our enlightened, antinomial ecclesial epoch–now unburdened from disordered attachments such as doctrine, tradition, and other unsavory accretions–canon law no longer guarantees what will happen, what ought to happen, or even what formerly happened; rather, it exists to execute the arbitrary will of its wielders.]

Third, if–I say IF–Mr. Begich was speaking WITHIN AND DURING the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (and I dearly hope that he was not, for the sake of all involved), there are likely additional consequences, which I plan to address in another post.


Please also consider respectfully asking Archbishop Etienne to look into Mr. Begich’s untoward appearance in the sanctuary of a Catholic Church.



GUEST POST: The Fall and Future Rise of Catholicism

Pope Leo XIII at Mass in Sistine Chapel

By Bob Bird

Satan: “Give me one hundred years and I can destroy the Catholic Church.”

God: “You have it.”

This visionary exchange was not an obscure rumor from a small backwater village, but from Pope Leo himself, in 1884, after he collapsed saying Mass one morning in the Vatican. When he came to, he immediately composed the famous Prayer to St. Michael and ordered it read aloud at the end of every Mass. Many Catholic parishes still do.

Catholics and non-Catholics alike have a right to know what is going on in the Catholic Church. A confusing and inconsistent pope is augmented by homosexuals within the Vatican and in many of the key positions. Papal appointments point to ominous signs of continued confusion.

Just when this hundred years began, and whether it was a literal hundred years, we do not know, but others insist that we do, see below. But fast forward to the Fatima visions of 1917, warning of Russia’s role in the destruction of freedom and the Church, and then when Joe Stalin ordered the historically acknowledged infiltration of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s. That he ordered the same to be done to the Catholic Church was only logical. Himself a former seminarian, Stalin realized that homosexuals would be his best agents, men who had lost any sense of natural law, sacrilege, conscience, or fear of Judgment.

The Fatima visions of 1917 asked for the pope and the Church to consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin, and reiterated in 1929. Why this was not done by Pope Pius XI or XII is a matter of endless speculation, but it never was. The fact that Pope John Paul II consecrated “the world” to her in 1984 indicates that the hundred years of Pope Leo were literal, and that communism’s satanic influence had successfully escaped the boundaries of the USSR, even while it was suffocating from the internal inconsistencies of Marxism. Recognizing this, John Paul did not waste time closing a barn door after the horses had escaped, but addressed the grim reality that the entire world was now in a dire grip that needed miraculous intervention.

While Russia even now is rediscovering Christianity, the influence of communism continues in the west. Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand were close personal friends of Pope John Paul II before and after his rise to the papacy. Dietrich takes his place with the great Catholic intellects of the 20th century who opposed both fascism and communism.

Dietrich privately interviewed ex-communist Bella Dodd, an admitted Stalinist agent, after she had testified before Congress in the 1950s. She returned to Catholicism under the aegis of America’s most famous Catholic in America, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Dodd said that she herself placed 1200 communist/homosexuals into American seminaries and knew that the number was over 3,000 from the work of other agents.

Alice, about thirty years Dietrich’s junior and now in her 90s, gave a long interview with the Catholic news site Church Militant, the thorn in the side of the USCCB. She stated that as each subsequent generation of homosexual prelates wormed themselves into the hierarchy, they made sure that faithful seminarians were ousted and good priests were punished and marginalized, even while pliant ones and those who were seduced were brought into the matrix. They would be rewarded with influence and appointments, then coached into promoting the denigration of the rich legacy of Catholicism.

Becoming drum-beat supporters of socialism was part of the agenda, rather than the far more effective and selfless reputation of Catholic institutions. Contraception and abortion were to be scorned or sidelined in importance. Instruction in the faith was to be insipid, and liturgical “reforms” transferred the essence of the Mass from an unbloody sacrifice of depth and mystery into a shallow, informal celebration where the focus became Man rather than God. Thus, we can now understand the completely unauthorized changes that came under the false “Spirit of Vatican II”. They now have generations of momentum behind their acceptance.

The earthquakes of confusion initiated by Pope Francis are now seen in the light of this homosexual or Lavender Mafia. It explains the marginalization of faithful Catholics who have begged for relief from the many ills plaguing the Church, from liturgical abuse, pulpit heresies and weak faith formation programs and instructors. This also includes the mysterious staying power of “Catholic” politicians, who have worked in concert promoting the sexual revolution, socialism, homosexuality, contraception and abortion.

Even as prayers were said in churches throughout the United States this week, the focus was only on the victims, unquestionably just and necessary but utterly incomplete about what the true malady is that is infecting the Church. Not once did the prayers or letters mention the word “homosexuality” and refused to confront the foundational evil that has infected the Church: bishops and priests who are practicing homosexuals themselves, engaging in continuous violations of their vows of celibacy with other adult men, or protecting those who are, whether willingly or through intimidation.

The almost daily exposure of this is likely an answer to prayer. Catholicism has an uncanny ability to resurface after every crisis brings it to the edge of annihilation. Since Christ’s Passion, this has been discovered in roughly three-hundred year increments by the Romans, Arians, Moslems, Norsemen, Albigensians, Protestants, and the French Revolutionaries.

Unless these are apocalyptic times, we await the certain rebound of the Church. It will be smaller, but stronger. It is the solution Jesus took when his disciples walked away from him in John 6 because of His “hard sayings”. It might even reunite much of Christendom. It will take a while.

But it will happen.

NOTE: This essay first appeared in Joe Miller’s e-letter, “Restoring Liberty,” and reappears here with permission of the author.

Lisa Murkowski, Abortion, and Holy Communion

A fine plea for human life was recently made by Alaska’s most prominent cleric, Archbishop Etienne, on his blog:

How many couples get married today already having decided how many children they will have? How many decide they do not even want children? Or, sadly, how many couples when they conceive a child decide it is ‘inconvenient’ and do not accept this gift of new life? Without judging any of those particular situations, I simply beg the questions: Can we not be more open to God? to God’s plan? Do we have the faith and love to accept God’s will in our lives, even when it ‘blows up’ our plans and trust that God’s plan is better than our own?

Regrettably, these questions do not seem to affect Alaska’s most prominent lay Catholic, who has taken to the state’s most prominent public forum to share that she doesn’t “adhere to all the tenets of my faith,” “I’m not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current,” and that “if you don’t like abortion, the best way to deal with it is . . . through contraception“?

Here’s what Evangelium Vitae states:

“Be Not Afraid!”

Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.


As pointed out by Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute, here’s how Cardinal Ratzinger would have responded to a politician who “does not adhere” to the Church’s teaching on abortion or euthanasia:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.


In contrast, here’s how Cardinal McCarrick would have responded:

“Based on our consultation process –said  Cardinal McCarrick,- there is significant concern about the perception that the sacred nature of the Eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground.”

“Expecting a minister of Holy Communion to make these judgments would create great pastoral difficulties. We do not want to encourage confrontations at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in our hands. This could create unmanageable burdens for our priests and those who assist them and could turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat,” the interim  report added.

The Washington Cardinal also said that denial of Holy Communion “could further divide our Church and that it could have serious unintended consequences. For example, it could be more difficult for faithful Catholics to serve in public life because they might be seen not as standing up for principle, but as under pressure from the hierarchy.”

“We also fear it could push many people farther away from the Church and its  teaching, rather than bringing them closer.”

“In light of these and other concerns, the task force urges for the most part renewed efforts and persuasion, not penalties,” Cardinal McCarrick’s report also said.

And here is Deuteronomy:

I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live!

St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Welcome to AKCatholics4Truth

The goal of AKCatholics4Truth is to defend the truth, back worthy Catholic initiatives in Alaska, support our priests and seminarians, encourage a pursuit of holiness, and bring light to areas of darkness — both in the world and in the church.

10 questions with my ‘Shoulder Angel’ about Prop. 1

My shoulder angel! Why are you here?

To remind you that “where sin has perverted the social climate, it is necessary to call for the conversion of hearts and appeal to the grace of God. Charity urges just reforms. There is no solution to the social question apart from the Gospel.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1896).

Oh no. Are you here to tell me something about Prop 1?

Yes. You cannot simply pull an ostrich on this one.

All right, all right. I guess I have to pay attention to my civic duty. So what is Prop 1?

Prop 1 is a ballot initiative for Anchorage residents that aims to keep biological sex as the basis for using public restrooms, locker rooms, and showers (“intimate facilities”).

What would Prop 1 change?

If passed, Prop 1 would do two things: (1) require Municipality of Anchorage facilities to separate their intimate facilities according to biological sex, and (2) permit private business owners and religious groups to determine their own bathroom policies without threat of lawsuit from the city or ideological groups.

Wait, what? I’ve heard of the ACLU suing the pants off of Christians before, but can the City of Anchorage bring a lawsuit against a private business owner?

Not exactly – it hears or judges the lawsuit through its Equal Rights Commission.

The whatsit?

The Equal Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial agency within the Municipality of Anchorage. It hears complaints from citizens regarding allegations of discrimination. Per municipal code, it has significant powers, including the power to subpoena and the power to levy fines. As some of your human judges have remarked, the power to fine is the power to destroy — well, that’s a paraphrase.

Are you seriously suggesting that a business owner could be fined into submission by the very government which benefits from productive, tax-paying businesses?

I don’t need to suggest it – it’s happened in quite a few places already to various business owners: Baronelle Stutzman in Washington, Jack Phillips in Colorado, Elaine Huguenin in New Mexico, Blaine Adamson in Kentucky.

They lost their businesses?

Elaine Huguenin did. Blaine Adamson won his appeal, but spent oodles of time, sweat, and money in the process. And Baronelle Stutzman and Jack Phillips are headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are other Christian business owners like them, too. Their lives and businesses will never be the same because they were willing to sacrifice their careers for the sake of testifying to BIblical truth about marriage.

Wait, you said “Biblical truth about marriage.” I’m Catholic, and this is about sexual orientation and gender identity. Doesn’t that mean I can put my head back in the sand now?

No. Here is what Pope Francis has to say:

“There are genuine forms of ideological colonization taking place. And one of these – I will call it clearly by its name – is [the ideology of] “gender.” Today children – children! – are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex. Why are they teaching this? Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this is terrible!” — Pope Francis, 27 July 2016


“You, Irina, mentioned a great enemy to marriage today: the theory of gender. Today there is a world war to destroy marriage. Today there are ideological colonisations which destroy, not with weapons, but with ideas. Therefore, there is a need to defend ourselves from ideological colonisations.” — Pope Francis, 1 October 2016


“The biological and psychological manipulation of sexual difference, which biomedical technology can now make appear as a simple matter of personal choice – which it is not! – runs the risk of dismantling the energy source that feeds the covenant between man and woman, making it creative and fruitful. The mysterious bond between the creation of the world and the generation of God’s Son is revealed by his taking flesh in the womb of Mary – Mother of Jesus and Mother of God – out of love for us. This mysterious bond never fails to amaze and move us; its revelation fully illumines the mystery of being and the meaning of life. Henceforth, the mystery of human generation radiates a profound wisdom about life. Received as a gift, life             is itself exalted. Generating life regenerates us; by giving of our lives, we are enriched. — Pope Francis, 5 October 2017

Ok, ok. I get it. And, in fact, I would vote “Yes” on Prop 1, except that I am planning to be out of town on election day. So I guess that means I’m off the hook, right?

Nice try. Anchorage residents vote on Prop 1 by mail beginning on March 13, 2018.

Boy, you thought of everything, didn’t you? Angel? Where’d he go? Was that 10 questions already?

Our Motto

“Not to oppose error is to approve of it; and not to defend the truth is to suppress it!”  — Pope St. Felix III

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén