The Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group recently did a "little experiment" when he was bored. He searched the website of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales for the keywords "environment" and "sin". He found 28 matches for "environment" and only six for "sin". Repeating his experiment on the U.S. bishops' (USCCB) website...
"Results for: environment Document count: environment (2757)"
"Results for: sin Document count: sin (3935)"
Now there's some good news, huh?
[12/18]
The following appears in an opening paragraph of a CNS article covering the Pope's 2009 activities:
"The Year of St. Paul. The Year for Priests. A major social encyclical. A Holy Land pilgrimage. A first meeting with President Obama. Ten new saints. An African trip and an African synod. A Facebook debut. A controversial concession to Catholic traditionalists. An unexpected overture to disaffected Anglicans."
It doesn't take a hound dog to sniff out the bias there, does it? The "eyebrow raising" encyclical calling for "large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale" which speaks "urgent need of a true world political authority" which is "universally recognized" and "vested with... effective power...[and] the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties" is referred to simply as a "major social encyclical." The other events are also simply listed. But, the lifting of some excommunications...that is referred to as a "controversial concession to Catholic traditionalists."
Although one might (unfortunately) expect such bias in the secular media, it seems especially out of place in a news service of the U.S. bishops - a news service that they claim "has set the standard in Catholic journalism". But then again, it's hardly surprising in light of some of their recent coverage, coverage which prompted one author to state that "It is bizarre theater indeed when an American Cardinal must directly refute the errors in a piece that was syndicated, published and propagated by the news service owned by the very Bishops' Conference to which he belongs, and this just months after the leadership of said news service was put on notice by a powerful Vatican prelate".
Even if the Pope's lifting of the excommunications was "controversial" (particularly to the Jews), was it really any more controversial than some of the novel passages in the encyclical or the Vatican's recent playlist including a rap song with explicit lyrics, or any other events occurring in 2009? So, why single this one out for the label "controversial"? One who didn't know any better might think the bishops were biased in a liberal direction - or that were more concerned about Jews' feelings than Church unity. But, no, that can't be the case. Certainly not.
[12/17]
* NLM is reporting that a seminary will open next year in France that will be "dedicated to both forms of the Roman rite" (Traditional Latin Mass & Novus Ordo)
* Unbelievable: Archbishop Nichols of Westminster has shocked & outraged Catholics by offering flowers "at the altar of Hindu deities"
* Sickening: Priest in the Diocese of Cloyne captured his abuse of a boy using his cell phone. He has been sentenced to five years in prison
* U.S. bishops plan to urge immigration reform, including amnesty for illegal aliens, using a postcard campaign & social networking sites
[11/25]
Some newsworthy items regarding the Fall meeting of the USCCB...
* The document reaffirming the Church's position against certain 'reproductive technologies', including in vitro fertilization (IVF), has been approved. The document hopes to clear up confusion, because as one Cardinal noted, some mistaken persons wrongly consider "any method of making babies" to be "pro-life"
* The directive regarding nutrition and hydration for the sick has been approved, confirming that there is, "as a general rule", an obligation to "provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally" which "extends to patients in chronic conditions (e.g., the 'persistent vegetative state') who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care." The document also indicates certain instances where this obligation would no longer apply.
* The pastoral letter on marriage - "part of a campaign launched in 2004 to counter the breakup of traditional families" - has been approved. The letter condemns c*ntraception & homosexual 'marriages' and addresses divorce and cohabitation (which "involves the serious sin of fornication" and "is always wrong and objectively sinful"). Not surprisingly, it also - many argue, dangerously - "encourages" use of NFP, which they claim promotes "an attitude of respect and wonder" (as opposed to trusting in God's providence?). Some other "pastoral language" in the document is equally...um, interesting.
* The new translation of the Roman Missal (Novus Ordo) has finally been approved. The translation - which corrects some decades-old translation errors - is said to be more faithful to the official Latin edition. The proposed translation must be confirmed by the Vatican before implementation.
* A preliminary report to the bishops claims evidence does not show that homosexual priests are more likely to abuse children. Despite the fact that the "overwhelming majority" of victims have been male, researchers claim they "do not find a connection between homosexual identity [of clergy] and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now." Unbelievably, they attribute the homosexual actions on "access" to boys rather than to "homosexual identity." A full report is expected to be released by the end of next year.
[11/18]
A couple recent letters have been making waves in Catholic circles. The first is a draft of a pastoral letter on marriage by the U.S. bishops. It was "leaked" to the press and will be discussed & voted on by the bishops in November. The second is a pastoral letter of the Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa. Brief highlights concerning both appear below.
U.S. Bishops' Letter
The 57-page pastoral letter on marriage is said to discuss Catholic teaching on marriage as well as covering "fundamental challenges to the nature and purpose of marriage" such as c*ntraception, homosexual unions, divorce and cohabitation. The document reportedly also covers harm to children from cohabitation and divorce, as well as harm to society from same-sex unions.
On the positive side, the letter has been "harshly criticized" by dissenters. On the negative side, the document is said to encourage NFP while omitting reference to the required "serious reason" which make its use licit only in certain cases and only for certain periods (click here for more information). Also potentially troubling are references to 'remarriage' which may lack forceful denunciations and reminders of the gravity of sin involved. Even when actions are condemned as "gravely immoral", one may fear that the final document will (as is common nowadays) omit all mention of the grave eternal consequences of such actions as well as the divine mandate not to engage in them.
For example, which explanation do you think is more likely to prevent fornication?
* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is gravely immoral because it communicates physically the gift of oneself to another when, at the same time, one is not willing or able to make a total and permanent commitment."
* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is a mortal sin that offends God. Those who engage in this sin may suffer the pains of hell for all eternity. Scripture says, "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and says that "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? We know the one who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' and again: 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:26-31)
One may be permitted to think the latter would have a better chance of deterring sin, especially since this approach seems more closely aligned with writings of previous popes, saints, and even Holy Scripture.
Letter of Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa
Certain Catholics may be glad to hear that Bishop Nickless' recent pastoral letter includes a reference to exorcising the spirit of Vatican II. Specifically, the bishop says, "The so-called 'spirit' of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work." He also says that "It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council" and says that "There can be no split...between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."
The Bishop embraces Vatican II, but wants to see it "fully implemented and brought to fruition." In fact, not only does he embrace Vatican II, but he somehow actually considers it "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries." There seems to be no precedent for "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries" which also requires that it's "so-called 'sprit'...must be exorcised."
Certainly his letter is not a 'traditionalist's document' [e.g. it contains multiple, unqualified references to "Pope John Paul the Great" (click here for one user's article on this topic), it says Vatican II's "aggiornamento brought about a great breath of fresh air, a new freedom and excitement about being Catholic", it speaks favorably concerning certain novelties, etc.], but it does note a loss of sense of sin and refers to problems in today's liturgy, calling for a renewed "reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass."
There seems to be no word on which exorcist may be called in for the task, but still it's an interesting thought, is it not?
[Related Resources: Summary of Changes Since Vatican II: A Revolution in the Church? | Vatican II and its Fruits]
[10/16]
In another blow to pro-lifers, the U.S. bishops have congratulated President Obama - "the most pro-abortion president in history" - on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, stating that...
"In our own country, the remarkable and historic achievement of his election has changed the relationships between men and women of all races. The rich diversity of United States society is now more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue."
So because a (half) black man has been elected president we are now "more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue" - even though this man champions s*domy & the killing of the unborn? Even though he has increased international abortions and keeps pushing for more increases in abortion? Even though he rejects marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman? Even though he wants c*ntraceptives handed out to children in government-run schools?
Previously, news of the award was "greeted with appreciation at the Vatican in light of the president's demonstrated commitment to promoting peace on an international level and, in particular, in recently promoting nuclear disarmament", a reaction that caused "shock and dismay" to pro-lifers. As one anonymous pro-life leader told the LifeSiteNews.com website, "If Obama was good on international peace and nuclear disarmament but favored the killing of Jews, its not likely he would get either the Noble Peace Prize or be praised by the Vatican."
Passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize were true champions of peace with tangible accomplishments who are not - as ALL's Judie Brown notes regarding Obama - "dedicated to war in the womb". Besides, as faithful Catholics might ask, how can Obama be given any award for peace - no matter what accomplishments he might have achieved - in light of the fact that he is an unrepentant & ardent promoter of the murder of the unborn? What peace can there be when the weakest among us can be killed with impunity? Had Hitler ever made any true advancements in the name of peace - much less simple 'hopes' - could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes)? How can we look the other way when an even greater number of children have been killed by their own mothers through abortion? And Obama isn't against these murders, but has done much to foster and expand the killing - even using your tax dollars to do so.
Fortunately the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, was at least partially critical of the award (a 'happy surprise' given some of their recent controversial articles), stating that "Analysts have almost unanimously interpreted his selection as a way of pressuring Obama to make pacifist choices as his administration continues forward." The paper also said that Obama should "recall that in 1979 he was preceded by Mother Teresa, who had the courage to state in her acceptance speech that the harshest war with the greatest number of 'fallen' is the practice of abortion, legalized and facilitated as well by the international structures" and noted "that the selection process has become mired in being politically correct."
Unfortunately though, the paper concluded that "at the same time, as the director of the Holy See’s Press Office has stated, we cannot help but rejoice at the recognition of President Obama’s efforts at nuclear disarmament and his personal disposition towards a policy that seeks peace more than the affirmation of U.S. power in the world." Once again, it seems fair to ask if Hitler made efforts at nuclear disarmament (or simply hoped to), could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes) and not help but "rejoice"? Do you think they would still "rejoice" if their own parents were among those killed by him simply because he supported nuclear disarmament? What if he supported nuclear disarmament even at the very same time that he supported killing more members of their own families? Think they'd still be rejoicing? Think they couldn't "help but rejoice"? Maybe they'd give him a peace prize themselves? Would they then also consider giving Ted Bundy or Charles Manson a peace prize for some perceived good they accomplished (or hoped to achieve) in light of the murders they were also responsible for? Even if these two serial killers were big supporters of nuclear disarmament, it's extremely doubtful anyone would consider giving either of them an award for peace. But unborn babies are every bit as victimized by abortion as these killers' victims were - even more so if you consider that these infants probably never had an opportunity for baptism - so why give an award for peace to someone who supports their killing?
How is it the Vatican, the bishops, and the Vatican newspaper "cannot help but rejoice" at the news of the Peace Prize being given to a radical abortion promoter? Numerous faithful Catholics are morally outraged and want to know why their leaders are expressing "appreciation" and "rejoicing" instead of joining them in expressing moral outrage. Why waste this great teachable moment? Why not tell the world there will be no peace while society tolerates the murder of babies in the womb? Why not remind the world that true peace is not possible when we do not obey Christ? How can they feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the thought that this man would fight for the 'right' to kill them as well as their loved ones - and anyone else for that matter - while they were in the womb? Let's also not forget that this same 'peaceful' man voted against giving medical care to babies born alive after an 'unsuccessful' abortion. Still rejoicing?
What about the recent comments of the self-professed 'champion' of s*domites that echo his previous statements & actions. Do they still feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the award in light of the following recent remarks of Obama's?...
* Obama has pledged to be with the homosexuals in their "fight" (sound peaceful?), saying that "we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love."
* Obama claims that those who oppose homosexual 'marriage' are holding "outworn arguments and old attitudes"
* Obama claims that defenders of traditional marriage "would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution" and claims that they are pushing "divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain"
* Obama stated that his administration will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He is also trying to get the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act passed as well as moving ahead with plans to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy"
* Obama told a homosexual advocacy group that they "will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman" (emphasis added)
Still rejoicing? Still think the man promotes peace? Does it bother you that he is spending your hard-earned tax dollars on new federal benefits for 'LGBT families', not to mention increased funding for abortion? Doesn’t it make you sick to think that he and his wife purposely invited "LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll, because we want to send a message"? Doesn't it offend you that he's doing all he can to push sinful, abhorrent homosexual unions as well as the murder of the unborn? How can a man so committed to half of only four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance [namely: (1) willful murder (abortion), and (2) sodomy] be given an award for peace? And how can our Catholic leaders be "appreciative" of and "rejoicing" at the news? Enough rejoicing already - this is a time for lamination!
"'Peace, peace!' they say, though there is no peace. They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD." (Jer. 6:14-15)
"We remember saying that...as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of Our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations." (Pope Pius XI)
[Related: The End of Freedom in America?]
[10/12]
Many bishops seem to have lost sight of a basic fundamental duty of all individuals: don't break the law. Persons whose first act on U.S. soil is to sneak into the country illegally have already showed contempt for our laws. And, these same persons must continue to lie & break laws in order to remain here. The facts clearly show that illegals burden law-abiding citizens with immense costs. They force the closure of hospitals, raise insurance and healthcare prices, drive down wages, clog jails and courts. They drive without insurance, take our jobs, use up our resources, burden and overcrowd the state-run education, justice & welfare systems, and cost law-abiding citizens huge amounts to support them. These illegals are responsible for much crime - including violent crime - and saddle society with incalculable societal and financial costs.
The illegals themselves have no sense of respect for the law (they have repeatedly shown contempt for it) and no sense of patriotism (how can you be a patriot of a country when you refuse to honor its laws?). They often reject our culture (even the good parts), bring disease, increase racial tension, and cause offense to others (e.g. by urinating on walls, housing multiple families in overcrowded, unsanitary & unsafe dwellings, bearing numerous children out of wedlock, littering, loitering, vandalism, etc.). Some illegals use stolen identities. Frequently, illegals fail to pay taxes, drive without licenses, and refuse to learn our language. Some even fly their country's flags on our soil. Many have the attitude that we "owe them". They are not citizens of our country, but invaders.
Apparently, however, some bishops think we should "look the other way" and treat them as if they are just regular 'citizens'. But this is not true. They are trespassers - even robbers. One could say they "steal" taxpayer money - your money. A country is not obligated to support anyone who shows up on its soil any more than a Catholic man is obligated to welcome into his home anyone who shows up at his doorstep. Rather, it is the Catholic man's duty to prevent the invasion of his home in order to protect those who live there. Likewise, it is a country's duty to protect her citizens. Charity yes, anarchy & robbery no.
The United States already gives billions in aid to countries all over the world and allows thousands of LEGAL immigrants to enter the country every year - we are far more generous than any other country on the face of the earth. We are certainly not lacking in charity. However, we should not reward those who break into our country illegally and show contempt for our laws. Rather, we should send them home. And we should bill them for it.
However, some bishops do not seem to see it this way. Instead, they apparently want U.S. citizens to cough up even more money for "comprehensive health care" for illegals. Have they completely lost sight of the fact that taxpayers are already at their limit? Do they really think it is right to overwhelm our medical system with millions of persons who show no regard for our laws and make us pay for it? Do they really fail to see the injustice in this? Or, is the real truth that many bishops back illegals because they "fill the pews" and add to the collection box?
It's time for Catholics to take a stand. Tell your bishops that you resent their supporting illegals' breaking of our just laws. Remind them charity must be voluntary, not forced - and that it is your right to determine who to direct your charity towards. Ask them to stop scandalously disregarding basic laws & justice. Tell them you want to be protected from lawbreakers, cheaters & thieves. Tell them you want illegals sent back to their own country for "comprehensive health care". Tell them you reject amnesty for lawbreakers. Tell them you don't want to support foreigners' children who are born here at your expense (children who should rightly be considered illegal, not 'citizens' to reward with your tax dollars). And then remind them that you lovingly welcome immigrants who come here legally and who respect our laws.
And finally, when they accuse you of not being "charitable", remind them that it is not a duty of charity to aid persons to break laws, cheat, lie, and (essentially) steal. Furthermore, ask them if they are the ones who are not being charitable by their wrongly disregarding the just laws of this country and the common good of its law-abiding citizens as well as their potentially endangering innocent persons.
Should they dispute this, consider offering to take them on a trip to jails, courthouses, welfare offices, closed hospitals, crime-ridden border cities, etc. to see the cost to others of their supposed "charity".
[5/28]
Posts
