Defeat for traditionalists?

The long-rumored transfer of Archbishop Ranjith has been formally announced. He will be succeeded by American Archbishop-elect Joseph Augustine DiNoia. Is this a really a defeat for traditionalists? Time will tell, but signs seem to indicate the opposite. For example:

* It is thought that Archbishop Ranjith may now be in line for a red hat, possibly as early as next year

* Archbishop-elect Joseph Augustine DiNoia has been quoted as saying: "The great danger is when the focus [of the liturgy] is on the celebrating community [instead of on God]" and "I think the liturgy should give us a sense of the heavenly liturgy; it's about God, not us"

Now that doesn't sound like a defeat for traditionalists, does it? [6/16]

"It's not about being Catholic"

Once again, we witness the sad results of Catholics' loss of the sensus Catholicus - this time in the dispute in Texas. Parishioners at the remote parish are unhappy because the diocese wants to demolish their hurricane-damaged church. They believe the building can be repaired and have taken the matter to (civil) court where a judge issued a restraining order on their behalf. In the meantime, rather than arrange appropriate accommodations, some parishioners took it upon themselves to schedule a Mass at a Methodist 'church'. Fortunately, the diocese apparently ordered the priest to stay away from the event (unfortunately, it is not clear if it was for the most essential reason - some claim it was "in retribution"). Sadly, the parishioners went ahead with their own priestless "service" at the aforementioned 'temple of heresy', a Methodist 'church', led by heretical "ministers".

Why these Catholics would voluntarily choose to adore God at a place erected solely for the purpose of heretical worship boggles the mind. We know that holy persons of the past would have chosen martyrdom rather than step foot on such unholy ground.

It seems even more evidence that decades of ecumenism have destroyed the sensus Catholicus. Don't these people realize that...?

* This 'temple of heresy' is a profane place that Catholics should not enter. It exists for the sole purpose of heretical "worship" by those in a false, man-made religion which is set up in opposition to the one true Church of Christ. Keep in mind that false religions deny the hierarchical nature of Church, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Christ's true Flesh and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, etc. They advocate false doctrines, reject and distort parts of the Bible & they may tolerate or promote sins such as contraception, euthanasia, abortion, divorce, etc.

* If there is a so-called 'altar' there, it would be a great offense to lay the Holy Eucharist on this unblessed & profane place used to conduct false worship.

* Despite numerous warnings in scripture, these people have willingly "opened their ears" to false clergy, listened to 'scripture' which was (presumably) from a corrupt - heretical - translation, and allowed themselves to be led in prayer by "wolves" (false preachers).

In the past, the penalty for such actions would have been excommunication: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whomsoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergymen or laic, let him be excommunicated." (Council of Carthage, 398 A.D.)

Even the Second Vatican Council has said "Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law."

These people apparently are somehow unaware - or don't care - that their actions are an offense to almighty God and cause scandal. They also appear to be contemptuous of the diocese (one story reads: "Parishioners vow to have the service if only to send a message of their displeasure to the archdiocese").

If only they would take a lesson from Scripture...

"After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned." (St. Paul, Ti. 3:10-11)

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works." (St. John, 2 Jn. 1:10-11)

"Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said: 'I will live with them and move among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Therefore, come forth from them and be separate,' says the Lord, 'and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.'" (St. Paul, 2 Cor. 6:14-18)

A little history lesson might also be of assistance...

* St. John the Apostle wouldn't so much as remain in the same building (a secular edifice) with a heretic ["Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems in his Gospel to have revealed the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment 'to love one another', nevertheless strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ's teaching: 'If any man comes to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you.' (2 John 1:10)" (Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium Animos", 1928 A.D.)

* A disciple of the St. John the Apostle referred to a heretic as "the first-born of Satan ["Irenaeus himself relates with regard to his master Polycarp {who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle}, how, when being asked by the heretic Marcion if he knew him, he replied: 'I know thee to be the first-born of Satan.' He also tells us that St. John {the Apostle} hearing that Cerinthus was in the same public edifice into which he had just entered, fled precipitately, for fear, as he said, that because of this enemy of truth the walls of the building would crumble down upon them all: 'so great,' remarks the bishop of Lyons, 'was the fear the apostles and their disciples had of communicating, even by word, with any one of those who altered truth.'" (Liturgical Year)]

* Another disciple of St. John the Apostle said those who listen to heretics will be dammed ["Do not err, my brethren: the corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God, for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire; and so also will anyone who listens to him." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, a hearer of St. John the Apostle, c. 110 A.D.)]

* Throughout history, popes, councils, and numerous saints warned of the danger of associating with heretics. We know also that saints would give up their lives rather than partake part in 'worship' with heretics or enter heretical 'churches' - "temples of Satan". As St. Ephraem the Syrian, Doctor of the Church has said, "Fly from them and from their doctrines; do not go near them, for you know that whoever is found in a place where outrage has been offered to the king has to come into court to be questioned according to law. Even if he can prove he was not guilty he will be condemned for want of zeal. Do not sit with heretics nor associate with apostates."

Frankly, their use of this facility makes as much sense asking one's avowed mortal enemy to borrow his house to celebrate your birthday. These parishioners would probably know better than to do that, but somehow they didn't know better than to use such unholy ground to "worship" God? Do they actually think God is pleased that they have used this "temple of Satan" for "worship"? Will anyone tell these poor, misguided people to get to confession; that they have - objectively speaking - betrayed the Catholic faith, and God? As one participant in the "worship service" said, "This is not about being Catholic." At least there's one thing they got right.

Related Link: Does it Really Matter if I'm Catholic or Not? / No Salvation Outside the Church (The Importance of Being Catholic: Combating Religious Indifferentism)

[6/15]

It is frightening

Speculation is that the 'famous' FL priest who betrayed his vows and left the Church to join a heretical sect soon will 'marry' the 'divorced' woman. The reprehensible behavior displayed is obviously lamentable & scandalous, but it also presents an opportunity to pause for some serious thought.

For example:

* He will now be preaching in a false 'church' that espouses heresy - Will he change his doctrine? Was his doctrine Catholic in the first place? If so, how can this sect accept him unless he changes his theology? Does he not care that his sect is set up in opposition to Christ? "Do they actually think that Christ is with them in their gatherings, when they gather outside the Church of Christ?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage)

* Will he be effecting a valid (although illicit) consecration in their 'temples of heresy'? Although his sect does not have the powers of the priesthood (click here for decree on Anglican orders), his personal priestly powers still remain. Therefore, he can confect a valid Eucharist if he uses the proper form & matter and has the proper intention.

* Does this former teacher of Catholic souls somehow fail to realize that he cannot be validly married to this woman if her husband is still alive and she was validly married to him? (click here) Unless his formation was incredibly deficient, he would have to know this. Yet he intends to go through with this mock "marriage" anyhow? What does this say about his supposed 'faith'? How could a man with such apparently shallow faith have been made a priest?

* Given his sudden betrayal of the Catholic Church for a heretical sect, one may wonder if this former leader of Catholics ever adhered to the infallible Catholic doctrine regarding No Salvation Outside the Church (click here). And, if he failed to hold this doctrine, was he not already under the Church's anathema? [For example: Pope Pelagius II, c. 585 A.D.: "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord (Gal. 3:7)" And, Lateran Council, 649 A.D.: "If any one does not profess, in accordance with the holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God, both by the same holy Fathers and the five approved universal councils, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be condemned."]

* How could a man who has been ordained a Catholic priest simply stop caring about the Church or the souls he was placed over? How could he so easily betray them? Worse yet, how could he so easily abandon Christ for whom he solemnly promised to serve? Shouldn't someone have noticed his shortcomings? Remember, if he hadn't been caught, he'd probably still be a priest cavorting with this woman. Sadly, before he was exposed, this priest laid his adulterous hands on the Holy Eucharist time and again.

* How can it be thought that he actually "loves" the woman with whom he is about to enter a mock sacrament to commit adultery? We know the punishment for those unrepentant of the mortal sin of adultery is eternal hellfire. How is that love? Also, does he not care about this woman's offspring? How could he be said to care about them if he is willing to betray God, espouse heresy, cause their mother to live in adultery...?

Also worthy of serious thought is the fact that this former Catholic shepherd appears entirely devoid of fear of the Lord. His list of public sins is mounting rapidly: breaking of vows, adultery, heresy...

As Scripture tells us:

"[Jesus said,] I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one." (Lk. 12-5)

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it." (Ps. 111:10)

"Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king." (St. Peter, 1 Pt. 2:17)

"So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (St. Paul, Phil. 2:12)

Does this former Catholic shepherd not fear hell? Did he therefore also fail to inspire his former parishioners with a fear of hell? And this was a "good priest" a "model priest"? One worthy to be on television and radio?

As St. Augustine says, "If, then, the Lord inspired fear, and inspired it strongly, and doubled it by repeating the threat, I ask you, is it wrong of you to fear? I would not say that. Fear openly, there is nothing better for you than fear; there is nothing you ought to fear more."

Should not Catholics be extremely troubled that a Catholic priest has apparently no fear of the Lord?

In fact, this former Catholic shepherd's recent behavior gives reason to question his entire body of past teaching. Was it truly orthodox? Is this simply a case of his not practicing what he preached? If so, how could he have taught Catholic doctrine correctly yet suddenly go against this doctrine? Did he really hold Catholic doctrine to begin with? Did his Catholic faith really mean so little to him or does he see little difference between it and the heretical sect he has joined? Ether way, the answer is frightening. Remember he was a CATHOLIC PRIEST placed over CATHOLIC SOULS. And a "famous" Catholic priest at that.

Now that he seems to have no qualms about joining a false 'church' and "marrying" a divorced woman in a 'temple of heresy', we see he is clearly lacking in the sensus Catholicus. Therefore, how could he have been ordained in the first place? How could he have been made "famous" on Catholic radio and television? How did the deceived masses - or his superiors - not notice his lack of faith or sanctity? God help us.

Final note: Is it not ironic that he has chosen to abandon the Church for a sect traced to Henry VIII, another former Catholic whose libido led to his destruction?

[Note: Previous story here] [6/13]

Empty words?

It's hard to ignore the irony regarding a couple of recent news items. On one hand, there is the story "House Administration Committee unanimously approves engraving National Motto 'In God We Trust' inside new Capitol Visitor Center" while on the other hand we read: "House approves funding bill allowing Obama to promote abortion internationally". While the first story is welcome news, the other story apparently displays their lack of trust in God (Where do they think these aborted children come from? How can one claim have faith - "trust" - in God but dishonor His commandments?). Let us hope this engraving will not be mere empty words. Obviously it is great to engrave them on the walls, but it will be of no avail if they are not engraved upon hearts. [6/11]

Racist diseases?

We know that Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor believes test scores are biased when minorities don't do as well as white persons. We also know she thinks the death penalty is "racist" because she believes it is imposed on "too many" minorities relative to white persons. In her world, it seems that negative things automatically become racist (or "biased") if they disproportionately affect Hispanics.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude the she might also find certain medical conditions racist since Hispanics may be at greater risk for them (possibly including: AIDS, cervical cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer, earlier onset of cardiac risk factors and dementia, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.). Of course some of these conditions may be affected by personal choices, eating habits, and lack of proper medical care, etc., but we can be sure that Hispanic activists will lose no time in blaming white people also for these matters. It obviously is the fault of white persons if Hispanics choose to eat poorly, take drugs, have intimate relations outside of marriage or if they make poor medical decisions (even if it is because they are afraid to get "caught" since they are in the country illegally). Given the statistics, what else can we conclude but that the medical problems of Hispanics are racist? We can't blame them for their problems or expect them to take responsibility for their actions. No, the outcome isn't "fair" so it's racist. It must be. [6/11]

Can you imagine?

Recently, Congress unanimously approved a resolution condemning the killing of notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller. While we can't condone "vigilante justice", it's nevertheless a bit perplexing that of all the people killed each day of the year, Congress would single out this one man ("Tiller the baby killer") to pass a resolution over. Can you imagine the likelihood of a resolution being passed to condemn the killing of a heterosexual by a homosexual or the killing of a pro-lifer by a pro-abortionist? Or for that matter, will there be a similar resolution forthcoming condemning the killing of U.S. military personnel by a Muslim which occurred on U.S. soil on the very same day as Tiller was killed? Don't hold your breath. [story here] [6/11]

The Power of Language

[Advisory: News brief contains some graphic references]

Never having been waterboarded and therefore unable to speak from personal experience, it was particularly interesting to hear from one American who has undergone the procedure. This individual, Oliver North, has gone on record saying that...

* He has been waterboarded

* He waterboarded others

* "...none of us thought it was torture"

Obama, of course, refers to the technique as "torture", a word which brings revulsion to the minds of Americans. But might we now suspect another attempt by liberals to manipulate language to achieve desired results? For example: slaughter of the unborn becomes "evacuation of the uterus", pro-abortion becomes "pro-choice", murdering of the elderly becomes "mercy killing", and so on. So why not refer to "enhanced interrogation techniques" as "torture" since this single word will evoke the desired reaction?

This seems a fair conclusion, especially in consideration of the following...

* If this procedure was really torture, would we allow it to be used on our own innocent military personnel?

* If this procedure was really torture, would we allow our military personnel to use the procedure on other innocent military personnel?

* If this procedure was really torture, why don't those who have experienced it think it is torture?

Given these facts, it's hard not to conclude that the use of this term is just one more attempt to manipulate Americans using the power of language. It seems that the issue is not really about "torture" at all, but rather it is about the political agenda of liberals. This may be further evidenced by the musings of pro-lifers who have pointed out, "if Obama was genuinely concerned about torture why does he not care about - and even promotes - the torture undergone by the unborn in the womb...those helpless victims who can feel pain, who try to escape the instruments used to kill them...these helpless children who are routinely dismembered while still alive...?" Until Obama begins to show concern over the torture of innocent children in the womb, how can we believe he truly cares about torture? And finally, let's not forget that those innocent little ones tortured in the womb end up dead - unlike the criminals who are waterboarded.

[6/9]

Preposterous delusions or wishful thinking?

Notorious late term abortionist George Tiller, who was gunned down by a man with possible ties to extremist political groups, was eulogized this weekend as making heaven a "better, better place". The eulogizer actually told God to "get heaven ready" for "Mr. Enthusiasm" and said "Heaven will never be the same" with him there. In this eulogy, plainly devoid of fear of the Lord, surely there was no word on how this heretical, notorious abortionist, rife with blood of his helpless abortion victims, so speedily "made it into heaven" and no addressing of any of the following Scripture passages...

MK. 10:17,19: As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before [Jesus], and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"... "[Jesus answered:] You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"

Rv. 21:8: "But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Rv. 22:12-15 :"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.

Although we certainly cannot condone "vigilante justice", we also cannot forget that Mr. Tiller barbarically killed many innocent babies - even right at the point of their birth. He is also suspected of lying regarding the age of unborn children so that he could "legally" kill them. Although the eulogizer apparently feels he can judge where Mr. Tiller ended up, faithful Catholics know this decision is left to God and God alone. Still though, even if some great miracle occurred in the last moment of his life where this mass-murderer genuinely repented and converted from heresy (Mr. Tiller was an 'usher' at his heretical 'church'), it seems one's imagination may be stretched beyond the limits regarding how this man's presence there would make heaven a "better, better place", not to mention the stretch of the imagination that would be required to believe that this man could possibly have escaped Purgatory so quickly, especially in light of quotations such as the following...

"According to the holy Doctors, for every mortal sin a man is obliged by God to seven years of penance in this world, or the equivalent in purgatory; the reason being that every mortal sin is an offense against the seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost." (St. Vincent Ferrer)

"[S]he will be in Purgatory until the end of the world." (Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucy, in response to whether or not Lucy's young friend was in heaven)

"[I]f you assign, on the average, as St. Frances of Rome says, seven years for the expiation of one mortal sin, remitted as to the guilt, who does not see that we arrive at an appalling duration [in Purgatory] and that the expiation may especially be prolonged for many years, and even for centuries? Years and centuries of torments!" (Fr. Schouppe)

Related Link: Does it Really Matter if I'm Catholic or Not? / No Salvation Outside the Church (The Importance of Being Catholic: Combating Religious Indifferentism)

[6/8]

Let's hold them accountable

Towards the end of April, Hilary Clinton made claims about botched abortions in Brazil (i.e. she claimed to have visited hospitals where "half" the women were "fighting for their lives against botched abortions"). When called to account for her comments, there was a failure to produce any evidence. Still she has yet to retract this statement.

On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi claimed that Nancy Regan's support of embryonic stem cell research "has made a significant difference in the lives of many American people. It has saved lives. It has found cures." But the truth is that embryonic stem cell research - unlike adult stem cell research - "has not helped a single human being", it "has produced no cures or treatments, has led to the destruction of countless vulnerable human embryos". In other words, it has killed many human beings.

Concerned Americans should call on Pelosi to substantiate her claim with evidence. When she is unable to do so, she should be forced to publicly retract it, as should Clinton. It's time that those in power were held accountable for their false statements.

We should also remember that it is one thing to be simply in error and another thing entirely to deliberately lie. As Scripture says concerning heaven: "During the day its gates will never be shut, and there will be no night there. The treasure and wealth of the nations will be brought there, but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rv. 21:25-27) Let's hope both women were merely mistaken. If so, they should be willing to repudiate their errors.

References: Nancy Pelosi Misleads on Embryonic Stem Cell Research at Reagan Statue Event | Secretary Clinton, Congressman Smith Spar on Abortion (4/09)

[6/4]

'Blind justice' & the 'quota queen'

Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan has referred to Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as a 'quota queen'. He claims that she is "all about" race-based justice. In support of his claim, he cites the following:

* She "headed up Accion Puertorriquena (at Princeton), which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare demanding that her school hire Hispanic teachers"

* She "co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that demanded more Latino professors and administrators" at Yale

* She was "alarmed" when the use of quotas in university admissions was prohibited by the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In this case, the white Bakke was rejected admission by UC Davis' medical school even though he scored higher than "almost all" minority students who were admitted

* She has joined groups which "promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics" (e.g. the radical National Council of La Raza & the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund)

Buchanan claims that she is "a judge who, all her life, has believed in, preached and practiced race discrimination against white males". We know that she has put this into practice even in her own court decisions. For example, she decided that white firefighters should be denied promotions they had earned because they were white (apparently "few" minorities qualified for promotions based on the exams so she opted to disregard the exam results). We also know that she has stated publicly that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She has also given the indication that she is an "activist judge" who may take "personal feelings & experiences" into account instead of being a fair, impartial judge.

No matter what your race or gender, this should send a chill up your spine. Who really wants to live in a country where your gender or skin color are more important than truth & justice? Or when a judge's "feelings & experiences" are allowed to trump a fair and impartial assessment of the law? So much for the concepts of justice being 'blind' and 'equal justice for all'! Obama has chosen this divisive nominee who stands for race-based justice, reverse discrimination, and judicial activism. Elevating this woman (who, by the way, has a "terrible record of reversals") will be a signal that "diversity" is more important than law and skin color & gender are more important than justice. It will further destroy justice in this country by allowing 'lawmakers' to be disguised as judges. Call your senators & representatives and tell them to oppose this nomination. Demand that judges demonstrate that they are fair and impartial and don't render decisions based on "feelings" or personal agendas. [story here] [6/2]

Now we can be sure

If there was any doubt over Sotomayor's pro-abortion position, it may now be put to rest based on the following...

* Pro-abort President Obama is 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views

* Pro-abort Senator Boxer is also "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position

* A former colleague of Sotomayor "guarantees" that Sotomayor is "for abortion rights"

* The president of a major abortion provider (PP) called Sotomayor's nomination a "strong signal" that Obama wants Supreme Court justices who "respect precedent"

* A large pro-abort organization (NOW) "celebrated" Sotomayor's nomination and will campaign for her "swift confirmation"

Did anyone really doubt that Obama would put forth a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, especially in light of comments he made during his campaign?

References: Obama 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views | Pro-abort Senator Boxer "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position; Former colleague "guarantees" Sotomayor is "for abortion rights" | Pro-abort groups praise Sotomayor nomination

[5/30]

Civics 101: Breaking the law is not okay

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]

Obama nominates "judicial activist" to Supreme Court

Obama has nominated a 'divorced' Hispanic female who was raised Catholic to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Souter. His nominee, Judge Sotomayor has...

* Stated on video that courts are the place "where policy is made"

* Said that: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" (If a white man said something like this, wouldn't he be blasted for racism & sexism?)

* Reportedly ruled to discard the results of an exam for firefighters "because few minority firefighters qualified for promotions", leaving one critic to state that she "reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety."

* Called for special rights for Puerto Rico if they pursued U.S. statehood

* Has been called "a liberal judicial activist of the first order"

* Has been charged with a "terrible record" of reversals

* Has been criticized for her temperament

Unfortunately, some fear Republicans may not try to block her nomination because she is a Hispanic woman. Now there's a good reason, eh?

[5/26]

Obama not pro-abortion?

The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano has gone on record stating that Obama, the "most pro-abortion president in history" is "not a pro-abortion president." This comes as news to pro-lifers - and probably to Obama as well who has made no secret of his position on abortion. This puzzling statement would have been odd enough coming from a liberal newspaper's editor, but coming from the editor of the Vatican newspaper, it is even more shocking. If Obama is "not a pro-abortion president", then please explain why Obama...

* Repeatedly places persons with radical pro-abortion records in key positions

* Issues statements supporting abortion

* Forces American taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations

* Has taken steps to overturn conscience protections for health care workers who oppose abortions

* Funds embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money

* Funds organizations which promote abortion overseas

* Allows an FDA ruling to stand which allows minors to purchase the abortifacient "morning after pill" over the counter, without parental notification

* Forces taxpayers to pay for abortions in the nation's capital

* Eliminates federal funding for abstinence-only education

* Etc.

In light of the above, what exactly would it take for the editor of the Vatican newspaper to consider Obama a pro-abortion president? [story here] [5/21]

A thing of beauty

Truths and strong words from Archbishop Chaput's statement concerning the ND scandal are a 'thing of beauty'. Highlights include:

* We "have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness."

* "Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history"

* "[T]here was no excuse - none, except intellectual vanity - for the university to persist in its course."

* "Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it."

* "Notre Dame's leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame's critics are right."

* "[T]he most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist - by their words, actions and financial support - that institutions claiming to be 'Catholic' actually live the faith with courage and consistency."

[story here] [5/19]

The good & the bad, and the ridiculous

The following is a short summary of certain good & bad elements from Notre Dame's controversial commencement ceremony & the events surrounding it...

The Good

* Some pro-life students boycotted their own commencement ceremony

* Bishop D'Arcy boycotted the graduation ceremony & spoke to pro-lifers at a Notre Dame pro-life rally [story here]

* Around 100 pro-life students attended the graduation wearing a pro-life symbol; These students remained seated while Obama received standing ovations

* Courageous individuals risked arrest in support of the pro-life cause. Those arrested included an elderly priest, Alan Keyes, and Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of "Roe vs. Wade")

* Pro-life hecklers disrupted Obama's speech on several occasions

* The pro-life rally held at ND was attended by thousands [story here]

* Bishop D'Arcy called the pro-life students who boycotted their commencement "heroes" [story here]

* A selfless lady declined a prestigious ND honor [see previous news brief]

The Bad

* The "most pro-abortion president in history", Obama, received an honorary law degree from the nation's "most prestigious Catholic university", causing great scandal

* ND's president disregarded the bishops' statement, his own bishop's condemnation, and the public scandal to go forward with his "pet project". Despite this, students seem to support him overwhelmingly.

* Obama enjoyed the support of thousands of students & received a standing ovation; Attendees even chanted Obama's campaign slogan in response to pro-lifers' heckling

* Radical pro-abortion Obama received ND's honor & affirmed his pro-abortion stance while wearing a robe containing an inscription to the Holy Mother of God, "symbolizing dedication of all Notre Dame's activities to the Virgin Mary" [story here]

* There was no formal condemnation of ND's honoring Obama from Pope Benedict XVI (Archbishop Burke criticized the decision, but this is obviously not the same as if a condemnation had come from Pope Benedict himself)

* Some fear that "Notre Dame will become symbol of Catholic dissent" [story here]

The Ridiculous (pathetic, absurd)

* Obama's ridiculous call to find "common ground" over the murder of the unborn. Would he advance "common ground" on racial matters or would he reject racism outright?

* Hypocrisy of Obama on "respecting" each others views on abortion considering that he has shown no respect to the views of pro-lifers (and, of course, it isn't possible for pro-lifers to "respect" the views of those who advocate the killing of children) [story here]

* Hypocrisy of Obama concerning "conscience rights"; on one hand he claims to honor conscience rights, but on the other he works to remove protections already in place [story here]

* Fr. Jenkins' laudatory treatment of Obama; Embraces him, pats him on the back, almost seems to campaign for Obama

* The Vatican newspaper's response to the event fails to include a condemnation of the scandal; instead claims Obama seeks "common ground" on baby killing [story here]

[5/18]

What is surprising

It's no big surprise to many that a certain disgraced former archbishop is gay. It is also not surprising to learn that he will be publishing a memoir that will make some people "angry". But what is surprising is that a man who served as archbishop would have the nerve to publicly question whether or not homosexual acts are immoral. Did he miss his catechism lessons that sodomy is one of only 4 sins that "cry out to heaven for vengeance"? Did he not notice the passages in Scripture condemning homosexuality - including the one where the all-loving God condemns the sodomites to suffer eternal hellfire (see Jude 1:7)? Does he claim the bible and the Church have erred? Does he really think that because certain people may have an inclination to a certain sin that it is therefore "not sinful"? By his reasoning, is adultery also not sinful? Murder? Fornication? And, golly, apparently we shouldn't use "bad words" that are "pejorative" like "objectively disordered" because someone might get their itty bitty feelings hurt. Okay, one more thing is surprising - that such a man could have been given charge over Catholic souls. [story here (warning: may contain offensive terminology)] [5/15]

More Clarity: Head of Catholic 'Supreme Court' Tells Obama Supporters to Get to Confession

The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura ("Chief Justice of the Church's Supreme Court") has stated that Catholics who knew Obama's "clearly announced" anti-life, anti-family agenda could not have voted for him "with a clear conscience". He further stated that if a Catholic "knowingly and deliberately" voted for a candidate who was in favor of "the most grievous violations of the natural moral law" (i.e. Obama), then he has "formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin". Finally, some straight talk. For those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain, don't fret. Americans are always free to write in a pro-life candidate (or they can choose one of the independent pro-life candidates already on the ballot). At least that's one freedom we haven't lost. [story here] [5/13]

Let's be clear: NO

What seems obvious to countless laity is apparently "ambiguous" to certain persons in higher Catholic education. The President of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities claims that the 2004 USCCB statement which reads: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" is ambiguous. He claims that "greater clarity is needed." Perhaps a simple "DON'T DO IT" would be more clear. Or would that also be too ambiguous for a person holding such a lofty position? Excuses, excuses. [story here] [5/11]

Blind Sheep

In the good ol' days, if you showed a Catholic risqué pictures of a "famous priest" frolicking around on the beach, kissing and fondling a 'divorced' mother in a bathing suit, the person you showed them to would have been outraged. Unfortunately in our days, the 'diabolic deception' is so entrenched that certain Catholics instead held a rally in support of the aforementioned photographed priest, even slapping & knocking down a counter-demonstrator in attendance.

Further, the ignorant and enemies of the Church are using the opportunity to call for an end to celibacy, apparently clueless to its great value (click here for refresher on reasons for celibacy). They also appear to lack concern for the serious sin of fornication, for which Scripture says...

"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)

"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21)

"Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph. 5:3-5)

And they also appear unconcerned over the possibility that their spiritual leader may have broken his solemn vows to God, even though Scripture says...

"When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered." (Num. 30:3)

"When you make a vow to the LORD, your God, you shall not delay in fulfilling it; otherwise you will be held guilty, for the LORD, your God, is strict in requiring it of you." (Deut 23:22)

"You had better not make a vow than make it and not fulfill it." (Eccl. 5:4)

Given the above, one may have reason to fear that a "Rally for Judas" would be well-attended in our day and age. Poor blind sheep. Wish they would keep in mind Jesus' words: "If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit." [Related Links: 'Rally turns violent' | Bad examples do not invalidate the value of priestly celibacy] [5/8]

Thank a ND student

The scandal over Notre Dame's commencement, which will feature & honor Obama, "the most anti-life president in U.S. history", has not been entirely devoid of 'signs of hope'. Although ND's President continues to act in defiance of the U.S. Bishops - not to mention basic Catholic common sense - and, unfortunately, also with some backing of ND students, many others have been strongly on the side of truth and life. Since the news first broke, dozens of bishops have spoken out against the decision, the area's bishop will be boycotting the commencement, another bishop has already held a Mass of reparation, one lady selflessly turned down a prestigious ND honor, donors have withheld millions in donations, and there has been "national outrage". And, in the course of events, Obama's anti-life policies have been exposed to those who might otherwise have been unaware of them.

One thing this country typically suffers from is apathy. In this case at least - thankfully - apathy has not been as readily apparent. Although it appears that the commencement plans will, unfortunately, go as planned, many pro-life students at ND are not taking this lightly. Recently, they have announced plans to hold a protest at their commencement. Also, many ND students are expected to boycott their own graduation. Some students may confront Obama over his pro-abortion position. Images of aborted babies may be draped along the way. Although this should be a special day - a day of joy - for these students, a cloud will be put over the event because their leader has chosen to betray Catholic principles and would not back down even in the face of condemnation by his bishop & public outcry.

In spite of this, it is good to see that there are courageous ND students who still hold sacred their Catholic values. Any student who boycotts the graduation for which they worked so hard to achieve in order to defend their Catholic beliefs is deserving of respect. This shows great character and gives hope and inspiration to others. May God bless and guide all ND students. And may all people support and thank those who do what is right, even at a high personal cost. [story here] [5/5]

Bibles to become illegal?

With the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation in the U.S. House, there is fear that freedom of thought and speech may be threatened. Not only does this bill call for increased penalties for crimes against "protected classes" (e.g. sodomites), but it also allows for grants and assistance from the federal government to prosecute crimes against these classes. Putting aside for now the important question of whether or not penalties & law enforcement efforts should be identical in the case of two identical crimes, it is important to consider the effect such legislation is likely to have on our freedoms. While proponents of the legislation may claim that such laws only punish violent acts, history shows that this legislation may be used as a tool against freedom of speech (as in the cases of those arrested for quoting Scripture passages condemning homosexuality). This legislation clearly poses a threat to our religious freedom. In fact, we may soon live to see the day when quoting the bible - even from the pulpit - will be a punishable crime of "hate speech". And after that it's just a short step to banning this "hate literature" all together... [4/30]

Former bishop's excuses countered by "strongly worded" statement of priests

Former bishop and now Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has brought scandal to the Church with the allegations that he fathered three children with three different women. Although he asked forgiveness, he refused to resign. He also said that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me" and further insisted that he told the truth. Rather than referring to his repeated acts of fornication as mortal sins (or even sins for that matter), he recognized "personal errors" and said that "the more important thing was "valuing, perhaps belatedly, but strongly, the blessing of human life."

Well, perhaps that is one way to look at it (especially if you're the guilty party who wants to keep your job rather than the poor illegitimate children who have been deprived of a proper family). But wouldn't it be better for souls if we instead considered what Scripture has to say on the topic? For example, consider the following passages...

1 Cor. 6:9-10: "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."

Rv. 21:8: "But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

When it comes to the serious sin of fornication (not to mention breaking your vows, abusing your position, depriving children of a proper home, etc.), shouldn't one be reminded of "unpleasantries" such as mortal sin & eternal hellfire? Rather than tolerating your excuses, shouldn't the fear of God be put in you? Can you even imagine a sinner coming up to Christ calling their sins "personal errors" and giving the excuse that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me"? Rather, wouldn't they be more likely to fall to their knees and beg forgiveness?

Fortunately in this case, some priests have spoken out forcefully regarding this grave situation, saying "If we fall into sin, not only do we repent and ask for forgiveness, we also assume the consequences without looking for cheap excuses or childish justifications". They also addressed responsibility, temptations, fighting for values, the value of celibacy, and the former bishop's harm to the family. Please, more plain speaking like this and fewer excuses! [story here] [4/28]

Putting her faith first

Rather than putting her own interests first, Mary Ann Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican, has declined a prestigious honor from Notre Dame due to their honoring of Obama at their upcoming commencement. In her letter to ND's president she states, "as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions 'should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles' and that such persons 'should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.' That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it." Her letter was released to the public in order "to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision". Way to go, Mary! [4/27]

Bishop calls on Catholics to abandon "abysmal apathy"

It's refreshing to read Bishop Tobin's call to Rhode Island Catholics to abandon their "abysmal apathy" and help the state maintain its "moral sanity." His writing states that...

* "The march toward gay marriage across our nation is relentless"

* Homosexual behavior is "unnatural and gravely immoral", "offensive to Almighty God", and "can never be condoned, under any circumstances"

* "The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent"

He then reminds the laity of their responsibility "to get involved in public life, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God." Thank you, Bishop Tobin! Let's hope & pray that his words will have the desired effect. [4/24]

No more excuses

Now that Bishop D'Arcy has publicly issued a statement to the faithful, perhaps any remaining "controversy" can be put to an end. The bishop stated unequivocally that "I consider it now settled - that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter." It will be interesting to see what happens. Could one be allowed to hope that Obama may be disinvited from ND's commencement? Or at least not be given an honorary law degree? Time to start praying... [4/22]

Great grades, but what about Catholic teachings?

Notre Dame's 2009 valedictorian has gone on record saying that the "opportunity" to have Obama speak at ND is "unbelievable and incredible". Unfortunately, she means this in a positive sense. She called Obama a "great leader" and praises that he "continues to live by those values... He sticks with his values and his ideals". How is it that this obviously intelligent student doesn't see that it would be better in his case - e.g. the case of the most pro-abortion president in history - if he gave up some of his "values and ideals"? Even if one conceded any positive "values & ideals" to the U.S. President, how can they be "of much value" if the man doesn't respect even the most basic right to live? Maybe ND needs to add another class to its roster concerning the importance of holding all Catholic teachings without exception. "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it." (Jms. 2:10) And, further, how can such a smart student not see that for a Catholic University to give Obama an honorary law degree when he seeks to break the most basic of all laws - the right to life - is scandalous & most definitely not worthy of praise? [story here] [4/20]

What about chain of command?

After condemning Notre Dame's Obama invite and then warning about protests against it, Bishop D'Arcy now says he may join in a protest. While this is good news, why can't he simply stop the entire event? As "king" of his diocese, shouldn't he be able to say the word & put an end to it? Is he implying that a school enjoys higher authority than a bishop - even though a bishop "reigns supreme" in the diocese (under the Pope, of course)? [4/17]

Forgive me if I'm not surprised

It appears that four Texas PP clinics have been caught doing "illegal abortions" (of course all abortions illegal in the moral sense) - that is, abortions without a license. But does anyone really find it surprising that PP violates human laws considering that it kills babies for a living? How can anyone expect an organization to respect mere human laws if its "mission in life" requires rejecting the most basic laws of Almighty God? When you reject the basis for all law - the Divine Lawgiver - can you expect anything but anarchy? And finally, doesn't it illustrate the problem perfectly that an organization which kills babies by the thousands isn't in trouble for killing them, but that it did the killing without "the proper paperwork"? The only thing that's surprising here is that someone is surprised. [story here] [4/16]

Selling Out

To comply with "gay equity" laws, the majority of 'Catholic' adoption agencies in the UK have "sold their soul" and will now help sodomites adopt children. So how is it that employees at such agencies can dedicate a great many hours assisting children and then turn around and act against the best interests of these helpless youngsters by placing them in the care of perverts? How can they throw off their Catholic identity as if it was a piece of old clothing? Do they forget that even nature itself dictates that children should be entitled to both a mother and a father? Do they care more about receiving government funds than they do about the welfare of children? Do they fear their government more than they fear their judgment? Perhaps a reminder about millstones (cf. Mt. 18:6, Mk. 9:42, Lk. 17:2) might help. Let us also remember that Jesus said we must "not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more... Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna" (Lk. 12:4-5). Despite the fact that sodomy is one of the four sins which 'cry to heaven for vengeance', do they perhaps expect a "free pass" from the Just Judge because they are following "the law"? Please, someone remind them that "Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history of the Church") For the good of the children and all other parties involved, pray that these agencies will have a change of heart. And, pray that those in the U.S. will not follow their lead. [4/13]

With 'converts' like Blair...

It seems obvious that something was missing in the faith formation of Tony Blair, who recently 'converted' to the Catholic Church. Did someone forget to tell him that doctrines aren't based on polls or "evolving attitudes" but rather on eternal truths received from God? Did someone forget to mention to him that God is unchanging? Did he enter the Catholic Church thinking the Church could be molded like clay into whatever fashion he pleases? Did no one mention to him what 'scandal' is? Did no one cover sin? Did they miss passages in Scripture such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10? Blair needs to be publicly rebuked (cf. 1 Tm. 5:20) for his scandalous statements and forced to undergo proper faith formation. If he refuses to change his position, does he not become a heretic? As such, maybe he could be taught first-hand what the term "excommunication" means? Pray that those who will be entering the Church this week are properly formed & faithful, and that they will not follow this example. [4/8]

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]

Stop Calling Yourself Catholic

Question: What's worse than the senate voting down the conscience protection law? Answer: The fact that this proposed law lost because a majority of so-called 'Catholics' voted against it. What could a decent Catholic find objectionable about allowing health care workers who object to abortions not participate in them? Apparently these 'Catholics' don't see anything wrong with killing babies, but somehow find it wrong to permit people to exercise freedom of conscience. Since the law was defeated by a vote of 41-56, it is clear that the 16 'Catholics' who voted against it can bear the blame. [story here] [4/4]