A Few Updates

Some updates...

* The new archbishop of Seattle, Archbishop Sartain, was installed Wednesday. Some protesters gathered outside the cathedral during his installation, upset over the prelate's previous decision to ordain a man who would later be accused of abuse

* Kenya's bishops have issued a statement regarding the media's misrepresentation of Pope Benedict's remarks on c*nd*ms. The statement begins with a reaffirmation that "the position of the Catholic Church as regards the use of [c*nd*ms], both as a means of contraception and as a means of addressing the grave issue of HIV/AIDS infection has not changed and remains as always unacceptable"

* Proposed revisions to the Church's penal provisions have been ongoing for two years and will reportedly be sent to members of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts 'in the coming weeks'

[12/2]

So Where Are The 'Women's Rights' Activists?

[Warning: Contains troubling references]

A couple recent news items beg the question: Where are 'women's rights' activists? Namely...

* From a CNSNews.com article: "A top judicial official in the United Arab Emirates...tried to allay concerns raised by a controversial ruling from the country’s highest court upholding the right of a Muslim to beat his wife and children. Islamic scholars cite the Quran itself in defending wife-beating – specifically, a sura that instructs Muslim husbands with disobedient wives to admonish them, then to refuse to sleep with them, and finally to beat them..."

* From an interview of a Chinese man in the wake of a forced abortion performed on his 8-month pregnant wife by Chinese government officials under their 'one child' policy: "There were many people surrounding my wife. They held her arms behind her back held her head against the wall, kicked her stomach, I don't know if they were trying to give her a miscarriage right there and then. Her arms, legs, neck - were all injured."

Again, where are the 'women's rights' advocates? Dare they defend Muslim women and risk challenging the idea that Islam is a 'religion of peace'? Are they similarly forced to remain silent about China's horrors in order not to admit that abortion really does kill children?

Reminiscent of the p.c. mentality regarding breast cancer, many continue to remain silent. On one hand, they act as if they want to stop the deadly disease, but on the other hand they refuse to educate women concerning two known causes of it - contraceptives & abortion.

How many women and children will be sacrificed for the 'god' of p.c.?

[10/23]

Still Waiting

The Bishop of the Diocese of Nashville is reportedly still "planning a response" to the dissenting Tennessee priest's video which outraged many Catholics. The video - which supported contraception and argued against priestly celibacy, papal authority, etc. - was recently pulled from the parish website after an uproar by concerned Catholics. According to a recent EWTN article, the bishop considers the priest's actions an "extremely serious matter" and is still "working to find a resolution within the canonical discipline of the Church." Similar sentiments were expressed by the diocese in early August, yet there has apparently been little progress.

[8/17]

Religious Freedom 'Wake-Up Call'

A senatorial candidate's remarks that pro-lifers "probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room" is being viewed as a "wake-up call" regarding threats to religious freedom. The U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley (D-Mass.) said in a recent interview that "The law says that people are allowed to have [religious freedom]. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room." Her comments have been "sharply criticized" in Catholic circles.

[1/16]

Incoming Milwaukee Archbishop responds to dissident 'Catholic' group's ad campaign

The incoming Archbishop of Milwaukee has responded to a dissident 'Catholic' group's scandalous ad campaign which promotes c*ntraception and abortion for Catholic youth, as well as advancing the homosexual agenda. Regarding the claim that "Catholics can disregard Church teaching regarding c*ntraception, abortion and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing" he said that "Nothing could be further from the truth." He further stated that...

"While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like 'Young Catholics for Choice' in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called."

Perhaps if obstinate, dissident 'Catholics' were formally excommunicated, their ability to mislead other Catholics would be lessened. But don't hold your breath.

[12/15]

"We never know that our donations are going to be safe to give"

Catholics are outraged to learn the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has once again been caught funding organizations which go against Catholic teachings. Earlier, it was revealed that the CCHD had given millions of dollars to the controversial ACORN organization. But just recently, a study has uncovered that the CCHD has been funding organizations that...

* Urge opposition to a measure requiring parental notification for minors before an abortion

* Advocate opposition to bills which protect marriage as being between a man & woman

* Promote abortion, the use of c*ntraception, and the 'morning after' pill

* Work to defund abstinence programs

* Seek to 'legalize' prostitution

In other words, thousands of dollars of YOUR hard-earned donations entrusted to the USCCB campaign have been used to promote sin & undermine the Catholic faith.

The CCHD claims they have now taken corrective action. However, skepticism is hard to contain since in the wake of the ACORN scandal, Catholics were assured that (1) "CCHD's current criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD" and that (2) "These criteria are actively enforced". As the founder of the group conducting the study said, "We never know that our donations are going to be safe to give to the CCHD." Reportedly, although the CCHD has funded these organizations which go against the faith, it "very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor."

[story here] [9/23]

That's not devout

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OUTAGE ALERT: To better serve you, our website site is moving to a new host. We anticipate some short-term outages during the transition process. We apologize for any inconvenience.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

News of the passing of pro-abort, pro-homosexual "devoutly Catholic" Ted Kennedy along with news of recent remarks made by Cherie Blair - a supposed Catholic who advocates the grave sin of contraception - we are once again faced with numerous media reports of so-called "devout" Catholics who pick & choose which parts of the faith they will follow. Perhaps such persons really are "devout" in the eyes of the godless media simply because they might attend a Mass or utter a few religious sound bites, but are they really "devout"?

How can a "devout" Catholic possibly...?

* Advocate violating the 5th commandment: "You shall not kill."

* Lend support to a grave sin that "cries out to heaven for vengeance", a sin that caused the all-loving God to condemn the perpetrators to suffer eternal hellfire (see Jude 1:7)

* Advocate a practice that contradicts the primary purpose of marriage and caused God to directly take the life of one that practiced it (see Gen. 38:9-10)

* Publicly oppose the official teachings of the Church

This is their idea of devout? Wouldn't truly devout Catholics cringe at the thought of such behaviors being considered "devout"?

Even though more educated & faithful Catholics might write off these statements as being simply ridiculous, it seems we have a duty to actually oppose such comments. The reason? For the good of others' souls. Should persons less educated in the faith hear these statements go unopposed, they may think they can also be "devout" Catholics even while obstinately rejecting Church teachings. As a result, they may put their souls in grave danger.

[8/31]

Sacrilege in the name of charity?

In a story almost too shocking for words, we find that Vietnamese priests are aiding & abetting sacrilege because they think it's somehow "charitable".

According to one news account:

* Priests knowingly go against the Church's teaching to sacrilegiously give the Holy Eucharist to divorced and "remarried" persons

* Priests also knowingly violate Church teachings to sacrilegiously give the Blessed Sacrament to those who use contraceptives

* Priests apparently encourage parishioners to make sacrilegious confessions - their "remarried" and contracepting "penitents" have no intention of stopping their sins but go to confession for the very purpose of being allowed to make a blasphemous Communion. "Neither will that confession deliver you which is made without true repentance. For true repentance is a grief of heart and sorrow of soul because of the evils a man has committed. True repentance causes us to grieve over them with a firm intention of never committing them again." (St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church)

* Priests apparently knowingly give absolution to "remarried" and contracepting "penitents" who have no intention of stopping their sin. They apparently ignore the fact that, when deciding whether or not to absolve, they are obligated to "be careful to observe if the penitent be truly contrite for his sins, and deliberately and firmly resolved to avoid sin for the future." (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

Not surprisingly, the misguided sinners think the actions of priest(s) who violate Church laws are a good thing because the "feel" better as a result of their actions.

According to the same story:

* One "remarried" parishioner (otherwise known as an adulterer - see Mt. 5:31-32, Mt. 19:3-9, Mk. 10:2-12, Lk. 16:18) who "felt miserable" because he and his "wife" were denied the Holy Eucharist for decades now says his "faith life revived rapidly since I received Holy Communion". But how could it really be true that a sacrilegious Communion "revived" his faith life? Scripture says that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11:27)

He said he feels that "People like us need to feel God's closeness most through Holy Communion, which heals us spiritually" - obviously failing to realize that his blasphemous actions have not healed him (or his partner in adultery), but rather their actions have made both of them worse. The only way to really be healed spiritually would be to make a true Confession - including repenting of the adulterous union and putting an end to it.

Further, he apparently added a blasphemous confession to his list of sins in order to receive the Holy Eucharist (since he obviously intended to continue living as an adulterer even as he "repented" of his sins), thanks to help from his parish priest, an apparent conspirator in (or instigator of) the sin.

He is also - arguably - less likely to change his adulterous situation because he has found a priest willing to violate the laws of the Church in order to serve his desires, thereby risking his eternal soul. "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10)

He has remained in his adulterous "marriage" for over 50 years and apparently thinks that the passage of time could somehow mitigate his sin - rather than aggravate it. Spending most of one's life in adultery would increase one's sins, not decrease them!

Sadly, but predictably, after making his blasphemous Communion he reports that he now feels "much happier"

* The complicit priest in the above case says he also does the same for 20 other people "in the same situation"

* The priest seems to be ignorant of the fact that going to confession without a resolve to stop sinning would invalidate the sacrament and make it sinful. Receiving the Holy Eucharist in such a state would, in fact, add another serious sin ["Can. 907 The precept of confessing sins is not satisfied by one who makes a sacrilegious confession or one that is intentionally null." (1917 Code of Canon Law)]

* Priests also apparently give absolution to persons they know are using contraceptives and do not plan to stop using them. Do these misguided priests actually think that if a government is oppressive, the citizens will get a pass to break God's laws? Hardly! Rather, confessions in which "penitents" do not have the intent to stop their grievous sins are sinful and invalid.

* One priest actually believes that enabling blasphemous Communions during Easter time is a "way to show them God's love and empathize with their suffering". Hello? Offending God - sin - is NOT a way to show love or empathy.

" The priest seems to think that "allowing them to receive Holy Communion is a way to welcome them back" to the Church. So adding a serious sin to one's existing serious sin is a way back into the Church? Hardly. Basic catechism teaches that re-entry necessitates true repentance for sin.

" Apparently, other priests admit that they also allow the above, but may do so in private to "avoid scandal". As if God doesn't see what they are doing!

These priests are derelict in their duties by not telling their sinful flock that they face grave eternal consequences for their sins. They are exposing the Eucharist to sacrilege, the sacrament of Penance to blasphemy, willfully disobeying the laws of the Church, and are making themselves complicit in the grave sins of others. The fact that some people may feel "happier" as a result of priests' misguided actions does not matter. What good does it really do for someone tottering on the edge of a cliff if to be made to feel "happy"? Isn't it better to try to snatch them from the edge of the cliff for their own good - even if it makes them feel less "happy"? No one is happy in hell. But Christ assures us that those who commit serious sin without true repentance will go there. And it's the priest's job to tell them that.

"Proper dispositions for Penance: "The right dispositions for Penance are: (1) To confess all our moral sins as we know them; (2) To be sorry for them, and (3) to have the determination never to commit them or others again." (Baltimore Catechism)

"It is a beautiful thought, my children, that we have a Sacrament which heals the wounds of our soul! But we must receive it with good dispositions. Otherwise we make new wounds upon the old ones. What would you say of a man covered with wounds who is advised to go to the hospital to show himself to the surgeon? The surgeon cures him by giving him remedies. But, behold! this man takes his knife, gives himself great blows with it and makes himself worse than he was before. Well, that is what you often do after leaving the confessional [after a bad confession]." (Catechism of St. John Vianney)

[8/20]

Be more careful who you hire

With a reputation for faithfulness, how is it that a Catholic college winds up hiring employees that...?

(1) Dissent from Church teachings on contraception (which is a grave sin)

(2) Want the Catholic college to pay for them to be able to engage in the gravely sinful act of contraception

(3) Complain to the EEOC when their immoral demands are not met

(4) Take their immoral demands public to the newspaper and Internet

What are employees like these doing at a Catholic college which has a reputation for faithfulness? And, what message are they sending to the students there?

The Real Climate Change

Considering the recent "doom & gloom" report issued by the White House, it seems a good time to contemplate the "global warming" agenda. Not being a scientist with fancy credentials, these thoughts won't be lofty or technical, but more a probe of the impetus behind the movement and some of its unanswered questions.

To begin with, the report - authored by governmental agencies, universities & research institutions - says that global warming is...

* "unequivocal"

* happening now

* caused primarily by humans

* effecting the entire U.S.

* worsening

* already partially irreversible

* affected by choices made today

Grave predictions are associated with this report. For example...

* More floods, tornadoes & hurricanes

* "Significant" increase in heat related deaths

* Harm to crops

* "Extreme" heat waves

* More air pollution

* Increased occurrences of wildfires

* Water shortages

* Increase in insects

* Harm to the economy

Scary stuff. But, yet some things may nevertheless be found questionable with regard to the "climate change" movement. For example:

* If "global warming" is so certain and "unequivocal", why do thousands and thousands of scientists disagree?

* If "global warming" is true, why were scientists in the recent past concerned about "global cooling" - a supposed coming "ice age"?

* "How can they predict global warming 100 years into the future when they cannot predict the temperature accurately for next weekend?"

* How can they prove that "warming" isn't normal & cyclical? How do they counter critics' claims that the supposed warming is "moderate and not unprecedented"? That these are simply normal & natural climate cycles?

* How can they prove "warming" isn't caused by natural changes with respect to the sun as some suggest?

* How can they prove their "climate models" are accurate, especially in light of the deficiencies some say exist?

* If "global warming" was caused by humans, why might certain elements be traced back to periods of history in which it would have been impossible for people to have been the cause?

* If "global warming" was true, why have "propaganda pieces", such as Gore's movie, been shown to contain "substantial inaccuracies and false claims"?

* If "global warming" is getting worse, why was one recent year noted as the "coldest year of the decade"?

* Why have the alarmists "overlooked or downplayed" benefits that some "atmospheric changes" have supposedly brought?

* Have they concretely proven (not just alleged) that mere humans - who make up only a very small part of this planet - have caused such a catastrophic impact? ("In the absence of fire, could a lone fly heat up the entire Empire State Building?") And furthermore, have they even remotely considered the planet's - like the body's - remarkable ability to "heal" itself?

* How can they prove (not just allege) that human behavior is the driving force in "global warming"? Why do critics point to the insignificance of human factors in comparison with naturally occurring factors (e.g. volcanoes)?

* How do they counter critics' charges that their "cause & effect determinations are erroneous"?

* Are some supposed effects of "global warming" - e.g. erosion - really just normal occurrences that are to be expected? Didn't they occur many times in the past - long before humans could have been "responsible for global warming"?

* How can we trust their results as "scientific" when it would have been impossible for them to accurately compare temperatures over long periods of time? Remember that reliable measurements are available only for more recent years. They obviously must have based their findings on mere "estimations and calculations" - not actual empirical data. [And, even if changes could be reliably measured over the small span of the past 50 years, this wouldn't prove that observed variations are anomalies. Perhaps such variations have occurred repeatedly over past millenniums. Without reliable measurements for the past thousands of years, we couldn't know for certain.]

Also...

* Why does some significant evidence appear to contradict their theory?

* Why does the mainstream media fail to report evidence which is contrary to the alarmists' claims?

* Why is equal press time not given to those who reject the concept of "global warming"?

* Why are alarmists' claims given a good deal of attention when they are made but when they are disproved this fact is given little or no attention?

* How can we be absolutely certain that alarmists' claims are scientifically rather than politically motivated?

* Do we really believe government can "stop" climate change?

* How can they disprove critics' claims which speak of "faulty science", "lack of evidence", "untrue claims", "misrepresentations", "a hoax", "inaccuracies", "exaggerations", "lies"? Since they make the claim of "global warming", it seems the burden of proof must rest with them.

* Is it true that some dissenting research papers have been ignored? That certain "researchers" ignore opposition? That they gloss over findings which disagree with their already held positions? That "intimidation tactics" have been used? That dissenting scientists are "afraid" to speak out because they may lose research money or be ostracized by colleagues - or have their careers ruined?

* How do they counter charges that some have a financial interest in the outcome of supposedly "scientific" findings regarding "global warming"?

* Isn't it a bit convenient that such an extreme alarmist report has come out while legislation regarding "global warming" is stalled in congress? As one person said regarding the report, "One has to hope it will influence how people think about particular legislative proposals."

* How can we be assured that this is not simply "scare tactics & fear mongering"? Alarmists point to "catastrophic changes", "an enemy threatening public health", a "state of emergency" and say there is no time for delay. And there is, of course - conveniently - no time for debate.

Ultimately, what is most scary about this movement is the effect it will likely have upon us and on our freedoms. Don't we have very good reason to fear that this is an agenda to further tax & regulate people, take away freedoms, redistribute wealth, raise prices (especially for fuel), promote abortion and euthanasia, and gain power? Isn't this some very handy "artillery" to force people to make unwanted or harmful lifestyle changes (e.g. have fewer children; drive smaller, less safe cars)? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to advance the agendas of global government and depopulation? Haven't we seen over and over again how those in power provoke fear and then profit from it? Haven't we experienced many false alarms in the past - supposed "crises" that simply vanish away without coming true? Doesn't sad experience show us that we can't blindly trust alarmists and politicians, especially those who have agendas? Don't their actions already illustrate that the "fear mongering" will eventually lead policy-makers to discover new "environmental crimes" which could result in persons being fined, sent to jail, or even (in some countries) receiving the death penalty?

Isn't it already troubling that children are being indoctrinated into accepting "global warming" as an indisputable fact? Isn't it also unnerving that everywhere we go someone tries to brainwash us into acceptance of the "global warming dogma"? Isn't it bothersome that those who don't accept "the party line" on 'global warming' are likely to be ridiculed & ostracized?

Finally, even if global warming was actually true, could we safely trust politicians to "fix" this supposed problem if they hold anti-Christian values, if they are anti-life, and if they have no qualms about "taxing us into the poorhouse"?

Again, not being a scientist and thereby not able to evaluate the highly technical arguments on their merits one may simply consider what is readily observable. If nothing else, the above point to some serious "red flags" with regard to supposed "global warming". Besides, biblically speaking, isn't it fair to say that the end of the earth will be advanced by moral sins rather than "environmental sins"? Scripture doesn't speak of the end of the earth coming due to some "impersonal" crumbling of ecosystems but rather in relation to Christ's second coming. Obviously the real end of the world won't be preventable merely by adopting "green" policies.

Lastly, it is true that there is one climate change prevention effort that IS undisputedly worth our efforts. That is preventing THE real "global warming" that we may experience after death if our souls are not saved. And the threat of this "climate change" is undeniably real. Not only that, but it is eternal, unfixable, and is the direct result of each sufferer's own actions. It is incumbent upon each of us to do all we can to avoid this "global warming". Fortunately, preventing this dreaded "climate change" requires no scientists, politicians, regulations or taxes. [6/17]

Making a 'god' out of human life?

We all know that abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and the lot are scourges on our nation and on our world, but could they be merely symptoms of the fundamental problem? When we allow the very Flesh & Blood of Christ to be mishandled in our churches for decades (e.g. think of 'Communion in the hand' and the fact that particles of the Holy Eucharist which fall to the floor are continuously trampled on by Catholics at Mass), when the faith of Catholics is so weak that the majority do not believe in the Real Presence (despite what Scripture says in 1 Cor. 11:27,29-30: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord... For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying"), when priests who mishandle the very Body of Christ are allowed to continue in ministry, etc. are we not bringing upon ourselves such scourges? If we started focusing on the more fundamental and more serious problems, would not many of these other scourges clear themselves up? While no one can deny the sacredness of human life, human life comes nowhere near the sacredness of the all-holy God. That is why comments like those of the former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy City ("I mean nothing, nothing is more fundamentally important to Catholic doctrine today than the sanctity of life") are troubling. If we really want to end abortion, let's not make a 'god' of human life. Rather, let's focus on what's most important - God. If we really did this, wouldn't everything else fall into place? [4/6]

What nerve!

Apparently certain Portuguese bishops think they are free to openly and blatantly contradict the Pope on matters already decided by the Church. No wonder that even secular news agencies consider the Pope's "worst enemies" to be those inside the Church. In one recent case, a bishop said that a moral evil could be "ethically obligatory"! Another had the nerve to say that Pope Benedict's orthodox comments were "equivalent to consenting to the death of many people” - despite the fact that empirical evidence proves otherwise. Another bishop said that some persons "cannot avoid" having intimate relations! One Portuguese bishop said the Pope's advisers should give him "more learned advice". Perhaps these advisers could give "more learned advice" by suggesting the removal of certain bishops? [3/30]