JohnnyCatholic, The Blog for the Average Catholic!

Sometimes taglines can be misleading.

2009-08-17T15:02:00.000-07:00

Tiller Aborted

2009-06-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

I would like to express my sadness at hearing of the violent death of Dr. George Tiller, who was gunned down at his church. In my ideal United States, abortion would be illegal and Dr. Tiller would have had a life sentence in prison to hopefully come to repentence for his atrocious acts against so many unborn children and their mothers. Someone has taken the opportunity for conversion from him. I hear of the story of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who aborted over 100,000 children and is now a faithful Catholic and i know God can work miracles in the most hardened of sinners. Let us pray and make heroic sacrifices for proponents of the Culture of Death, especially our president, and let us renew our efforts to lovingly evangelize those who don't understand the gravity of abortion in all cases. Many of them simply don't get the inconsistency of their beliefs and just need to be asked some pointed questions. Plant seeds and water them with prayer. And above all, fast and suffer for those who know of the wrongness of their acts and persist in sin. They will need much more than simple engagement to come to true conversion. This is a war for their souls, even above the lives of the innocent, for what good is an ephemeral life if you lose your soul?
On another note, think of how hard it will be for Tiller's widow, 4 children, and 10 grandchildren to come to the realization that abortion is evil now. That's 15 souls that may be lost because Dr. Tiller is now a martyr for the cause of evil, not to mention his friends and supporters. We need to focus our attack on the damage done to women and children by the violence of abortion because this war will only be won in hearts. If we kill every abortion doctor, more will take their place. It is only by exposing the lies in the ideology that we will ultimately be successful. All sin is a choice and it is only by helping people conclude abortion is the worst possible choice that we can effect legislative change and get our nation's morality back on track.

My Point Exactly

2009-05-22T08:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.pressmediawire.com/Article.cfm?articleID=20982

This article says a lot about the people making the case for married priests. I'm not saying there are no good arguments for changing the western rite discipline; i'm saying i haven't heard any. I keep hearing from the peanut gallery. Like this guy.

Though the debate over celibacy in the Catholic Church has been ongoing, two recent efforts have thrust the discussion front and center.

An organization known as Celibacy Is the Issue Ministries (CITI) is making a renewed effort to prove that married priests can administer the sacrament under Canon Law #843, which states that “both pastors of souls and all other members of Christ’s faithful have a duty to ensure that those who ask for the sacraments are prepared for their reception.”[How about the men who ask for the sacrament of holy orders be prepared to live up to their vows?]

It’s a practical look at marriage and the priesthood that may convince the Church to reconsider its stance on celibacy—a stance discussed in harrowing detail by a priest whose own battles with celibacy cost him dearly.

Father Ameen (not his real name), an Eastern Rite Catholic priest [Eastern rite men who are already married can become priests; Fr. Ameen could have put his ducks in a row] and author of Confessions of a Passionate Priest, believes that fewer parishes would struggle to find priests if the Church were more pragmatic on the issue of celibacy.

“I had an affair with a married woman,” says Father Ameen. “The reality of human nature is that we need intimacy.[This woman was married and didn't keep her vows. She HAD intimacy and sought more elsewhere. Should the Church rethink its teaching on monogamy in marriage, too?] The Church is failing to address that. ”

In his book, Father Ameen discusses his own punishment at the hands of his bishop after his affair went public. He says he believes that allowing married priests to remain as operating clerics would help to avoid situations like his, which got worse recently when his bishop found out that he had written a book about it. [Imagine that; a bishop getting upset about one of his priests leading a woman to spiritual death and then writing a book to profit off of it. That narrow-minded chauvinist!] Father Ameen was barred from returning to his parish.

“The Church often looks the other way when priests are having intimate relationships,” says Father Ameen.[It doesn't matter if Church officials are confirming people in their sin. It's still sinful no matter how many or how few people participate in it.] “They understand, as well as I and CITI do, that marriage does not distract from priestly duties.” [That's because it's not marriage, it's an extramarital (presumably) sexual relationship. It's not a marriage. Is such a relationship open to life? How does the priest plan to support those children should he be open to life? Is the woman contracepting to prevent the affair from being discovered? I doubt a woman who would bed a priest would be scrupulous in upholding Church teaching on openness to in every sexual act. Call me a cynic.]

Recent statistics may force the Church to admit as much:

-More than 25,000 priests have married in the United States since the 1970s.[Which is about the time the marxist undermining of our faith really took root.]
-At present, more than 5,300 parishes are without priests. [So? We should ordain men who will steal our wives just to avoid a two-hour wait for confession?]
-In the last thirty years, seminary enrollment has dropped from 45,000 to just 3,500. [Once again, marxists infiltrating our Church and poorly implementing Second Vatican Coucil teachings have more to do with that than celibacy. Celibacy existed in the Church as doctrine since the 11th century. Why is enrollment down recently?]

“I love the Church, but it does have some rules that serve no one,” says Father Ameen.[Like 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife'.] “I’m proof, as are all married Eastern Rite priests, that one can live in the secular world and still serve God.”[Read: I'm living proof that one can serve God and Mammon].

Father Ameen remains dedicated to the priesthood despite his contradiction of specific Church rules. [And dogmas.] He currently lives in an undisclosed location in the United States, preferring to remain anonymous to avoid recrimination.[Recrimination from who? The woman's husband he defiled?]

(Confessions of a Passionate Priest by Father Ameen; ISBN: 0-9816892-0-5; $14.95; 224 pages; 5½” x 8½”; softcover; East Mountain Books)

A very wise priest once told me that being celibate was not so different from being married. You must be chaste either way. In celibacy you are faithful to God. In marriage, you are faithful to one person. You must find ways of dealing with temptations when you are attracted to someone else in either calling. Celibacy is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Let us pray for our priests to embrace this gift and continue living in faithfulness to the Lord that they may lead us to the Kingdom.

So, Fr., what are you doing Friday night?

2009-05-21T06:53:00.000-07:00

I thought i'd tackle the issue of celibacy, since it appears to be in the news a lot lately. Cnn.com had two articles, one pro-celibacy, one con. This was the con article, written by Rev. Donald Cozzens. I am going to argue it Fr. Z style because i feel it is the most effective way to go point by point. Incidentally, i didn't care for the pro-article because i don't think the author was effective in making arguments that would persuade secular people or explain to your average "johnny catholic" the advantages of this discipline of the Church. Anyway, here is the article with my comments in brackets.

It's an issue that simply won't go away. In spite of signals from the Vatican discouraging even discussions of obligatory celibacy for Catholic priests, the almost 1,000-year-old rule is under the microscope. And it will be for decades to come. Here's why.

In the Catholic tradition, even though sex is cast as sinful unless expressed in the conjugal embrace of husband and wife, it is held as fundamentally good, a part of God's creation.

The church even holds that marriage (including spousal lovemaking) is a sacrament -- something sacred that contributes to the sanctity of husbands and wives. In light of this official teaching, it is dawning on many Catholics that mandatory celibacy for priests, a canonically imposed discipline of the church, is precisely that -- a discipline.

They are asking, "How is it that a discipline of the church has been allowed to trump a sacrament of the church?" [This statement is meant to evoke an emotional response, not make an actual argument. Celibacy isn't meant to "trump" marriage. It is a discipline mandated by the Church for its advantages in aiding priests to serve God more fully. This mandate doesn't mean that the Church thinks celibacy is better than marriage, it means she wisely and correctly thinks a priest with a family to serve will be less able to serve a flock.] In effect, the church is saying that should God call a man to the priesthood, God will not, at the same time, call that individual to the sacrament of marriage. It's right to ask, how does the church know this?

Public opinion surveys indicate that most Catholics, priests included, believe the discipline of celibacy needs a serious review.[This is irrelevant. The majority of Catholics also use contraception. Should that be reviewed?] Recently the retired archbishop of New York, Cardinal Edward Egan, observed that obligatory celibacy is open for discussion. It is not, Egan noted, a matter of dogma.[True, but then one would have to make some compelling arguments showing the advantages of marriage over celibacy to persuade the hierarchy to change this discipline. I'm still waiting for that.]

For decades now, bishops from Asia, Europe and the Americas have asked Vatican officials to consider optional celibacy for priests. The church's official response is consistent and succinct: As a precious gift from God, the discipline of celibacy for priests will remain in place.

This, in spite of the inherent paradox lying just below the claim that the gift of celibacy is a precious gift of God to the priesthood and the church: How can a gift be legislated? [Marriage is also a precious gift. Why are there so many rules "legislating" it? Why does a priest have to oversee the wedding? Why is there marriage prep? Why can't i refuse the gift and divorce if the marriage goes south? All laws of the Church are themselves precious gifts and by submitting ourselves to them we become aligned with the will of God. Rev. Cozzens appears to have set up a straw man argument.] The church answers that if a man is called to the priesthood, God will grant him the gift of celibacy. Many priests today wonder how church leaders know this. Reading the mind of God in this matter -- in any matter of church discipline -- is risky business. [It's God's Church; if there is a discipline legislated by it, He will work with it. If he wants it changed, i'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit would make it known. He has His ways . . . I do not mean to be disrespectful to a priest, but Rev. Cozzens seems to be sowing seeds of mistrust in Church authority.]

More and more Catholics today are coming to understand that celibacy as a universal law for priests had its origins in the 12th century and that during the church's first millennium, priests and bishops -- and at least thirty-nine popes -- were married.

Still, most well-read cradle Catholics are surprised to learn that St. Anastasius, pope from 399 to 401, was succeeded by his son, Pope St. Innocent I, and that a century later Pope St. Hormisdas' son, St. Silverius, also was elected to the papacy.[Anyone who has studied advertising would recognize this as a bandwagon sales pitch. This is not an actual argument. St. Peter was also married. What is your point? Peter was not real attentive to his family's needs after he began service to the Lord. Were the above-listed saints also in advanced age with grown children before they began their service? Or did they somehow manage to effectively juggle family life with the demands of the flock? More information would be needed for this to be persuasive].

Even in our secular world, it's common to speak of church-based ministry as a calling, a vocation. Isn't it possible that God would call an individual to the priesthood and to the sacrament of marriage? God apparently did so for more than half the church's history. How do we know that God isn't doing so today? [How do we know that God IS doing so today? Do you trust that priests who want to marry are hearing the voice of God more clearly than the Pope? My first thought would be that they're hearing something else a little more clearly than God.]

For some years now I've been teaching in the religious studies department at John Carroll University in Cleveland.[Oh, great.] I've asked dozens of serious, healthy young students if they have given any thought to being a priest. They seem flattered by the question. With only one exception, each has answered, "Yes, I've thought about being a priest, but I want a family." [Obviously Rev. Cozzens has joined God in calling young men to holy orders. We are to assume that because these students are serious and healthy they are good candidates to the priesthood. Couldn't we also make the case that men who are willing to sacrifice the great good that is a family for the sake of the kingdom would be better priests than the serious and healthy young men who won't? I mean, am i to presume that the celibate priests serving God now did not want a family? I kinda hope that they don't have that sort of disdain for my calling. I have the immense respect for them that i do in part because they were given the gift of celibacy. If it isn't a sacrifice, they are somehow less cool].

There are, of course, other factors, urgent and pressing, that will keep the celibacy issue alive. The Catholic priesthood is aging. The average age of active priests hovers at 60, and if retired priests are factored in, it is considerably higher. Moreover, Catholic seminaries are lucky to be half full.

Parish staffing challenges alone will press for a review of the celibacy rule. Catholic bishops simply do not have enough priests to meet the pastoral and sacramental needs of the Catholic faithful. Closing and merging parishes may offer some temporary relief for overworked priests, but the shortfall of priests will continue to challenge the vitality of Catholic parishes and the health of Catholic clergy for decades to come. [Protestant denominations that allow married pastors and female pastors also suffer clergy shortages; this problem we Christians face requires fixing the underlying issues, not letting anyone who wants become a priest.]

But the most human, existential factor that should keep the celibacy issue on the table is the spiritual and emotional health of priests. Celibacy really isn't the issue -- mandatory or obligatory celibacy is. [If celibacy is really a gift of God, would it be spiritually and emotionally unhealthy? It seems either it is a gift or it is unhealthy].

There are many priests who do possess the gift of celibacy -- it is their "truth" so to speak -- and their humanity, warmth and pastoral effectiveness give abundant evidence of their authentic celibate lives. But there remain other priests who believe deep down they are called to the priesthood but not to celibacy. And for these men, the burden of mandated celibacy threatens their spiritual and emotional well-being. The priesthood may be their "truth," but mandated celibacy wraps them in a cloak of loneliness and struggle.[If they know that celibacy is mandated when they take the job, why should we be sympathetic to them over the Church when they change their minds? This is no different than a man who struggles with the "burden" that a family places on him. It can be just as lonely when you are going through a difficult period with your spouse. You are still expected to remain faithful and work out the problems even though the sympathetic woman at work may also feel like your calling. You made your vows - keep them!]

I don't know Father Alberto Cutie. He appears to have touched the lives of many and preached the gospel with power and conviction. I suspect he feels called by God to be a priest, but not a celibate priest [Fr. Alberto was photographed with his hand down a woman's bathing suit to fondle her rear end. I suspect he has issues with chastity that would make him a crappy husband the same way he's a crappy priest. But i guess Rev. Cozzens' suspicions probably outweigh mine].

Surely he knows that Eastern Rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry [correct me if i'm wrong, but i think they are allowed to become priests if they are already married, not allowed to frolic on the beach if they are already priests] and that the church welcomes into the priesthood married convert ministers from other Christian denominations [One such priest currently serves faithfully in our parish, but he and his wife are beyond child-bearing years, so i don't know how they would have handled family life divided by parish demands]. Surely he knows that in many parts of the Catholic world, clerical celibacy is openly flouted, and church authorities choose not to notice.[People are also having abortions and robbing banks; do we need to rethink that as well. Still waiting for an actual argument that's not a sales pitch].

I wonder if church officials understand the burden they place on the shoulders of a man who believes he is called to priestly ministry but not to celibacy.[Uh, considering that burden is also theirs, i'm pretty sure they have an inkling. They're not sadistic legislating eunuchs, they are flesh and blood men who share the same struggles and obligations to the law]. Certainly, a married priesthood will have burdens of its own and, sadly, scandals of its own -- infidelity and abuse among others. But it should be left to the individual priest and seminarian to determine whether or not he is blessed with the gift of celibacy. [Why is the individual more qualified to decide Church discipline than the Church? Rev. Cozzens has failed to give compelling evidence that men can effectively wear both hats. Are there no examples of Eastern rite men who have done both well?]

A mandated "gift," after all, is really no gift at all. [So the bike i bought my son is no gift if i won't let him take in on the highway. Got it.]

Rev. Cozzens could have made a more powerful argument by citing facts like that the Eastern rite has no shortage of priests (but they probably do) or addressing problems like the fact that priests make their living solely from the Church so how will it not be a burden for the parishioners to have to pay for him and his wife and their eight children? How is it fair for a child to be asked to make the sacrifice of daddy not being there for soccer games and other important things (that increase in number with the number of children Fr. Father has) because the parishioners needs must be met? How happy is the wife going to be when her husband is transferred to some country with no clean running water and she's 5 months pregnant? Celibacy is a gift with many advantages. We can send single men to horrible parts of the world and make them live on crusts of bread and not feel so bad about it. There are sacrifices these men can make that a family man cannot reasonably be expected to do. This discipline is a gift and i think a priest struggling with loneliness may simply be struggling with the sacrifice and trick himself into thinking he has a second calling. I do not believe it is a second calling, but rather a man trying to justify wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. If a man says he feels called to have a family when he is already father to a parish, can we really believe he is thinking of the sacrifices he can make for a wife and children in addition to the hard work he is already doing for the Church? You must at least suspect he is thinking of himself and his loneliness and the desire for his own comfort. While we must truly reach out to our priests in ways that can help them feel friendship and mitigate the loneliness that does come from celibacy, priests who have romantic feelings for parishioners must also honestly realize that they could never give a family their undivided attention and still be doing their job as well. If the discipline were to change, it would probably only open up the priesthood to men who are already married, not let Fr. Cutie continue his romps on South Beach. So let's strive to embrace this discipline as we have it, always being willing to embrace its change should Holy Mother Church decide there is wisdom in that path.

A Minor Inconsistency

2009-05-21T06:39:00.000-07:00

It seems that if a body were interested in reducing STD infections, they should oppose the morning after pill. After all, if you can have unprotected sex and then take a pill the next day to prevent pregnancy, why should you bother with a condom? However, not using a condom would necessarily leave one open to potential infections (I submit that if you really believed he had an STD, you wouldn't be having sex with him).
I think if one were honest, one would make the case that having Plan B on the market would lull more women (and girls) into a false sense of security, potentially reducing condom use. I'm sure that study will never be done because making that leap, one might also draw the conclusion that abortion being legal also reduces the likelihood that people will use contraception "responsibly" or that contraception being legal reduces the likelihood that people will have sex responsibly, i.e. within the context of marriage. I didn't intend for this post to end up like this. But i'm glad it did. :)

Get ready for the roundup.

2009-04-17T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

As everyone has probably been made aware already, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report on Right-wing Extremism stating that it's on the rise because of the new administration. There are many problems I personally have with this report especially because the language is so broad that it could be used to do some very scary things in the future.
First, I resent the label "right-wing" being used for groups like the KKK and other racist organizations. It seems to be inaccurate since Lincoln was a Republican and the Klan started in the South, which is primarily Democrat because of the Civil War. I suppose militia groups uphold gun rights, which is a right-wing position, but the implication of the report is that racism is a right-wing thing. It's not.
Secondly, the report lists people who believe in the balance of federalism as potential enemies of the state. The federal government has lately been attaching some very frightening strings to the money it gives out. Banks are trying to return TARP loans and the government is refusing so they can maintain a stake in the banks. They forced the CEO of GM, a private company, to resign because the company foolishly accepted taxpayer money for a bailout. Despite the bailout, GM is still expected to file bankruptcy. We get the same result, but now the government has control of the company, which they bought with your money. They are telling the governor of S. Carolina that he can't refuse stimulus money, but he can't spend it the way he sees fit. He wants to pay down state debt, but the federal government says the money must be spent to set up education programs that the taxpayers of the state will not be able to afford, since they have a deficit already from existing programs. The DHS report is worded so broadly that it could be interpreted that people who have a problem with the above mentioned power-grabs are "extremist". Even Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator of West Virginny (and former Klan member, I might add) says that this administration is constitutionally out of line because of the "czar" positions he is creating, positions of authority that aren't elected by the people, yet have final say over many policy issues (above and beyond the say of the elected representatives).
Thirdly, the report lists as potentially dangerous extremists those who focus on one issue, like abortion. Who do we know who focuses heavily on life-issues? Any Catholic worth their salt. Pro-life people statistically are not violent. Since 1977 there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 4 kidnappings, and 216 arsons committed against abortionists/abortion mills (according to abortionviolence.com). The DHS report fails to cite any new and recent incidents to support the claim that pro-life "extremists" are on the move. This seems, then, like a non-factual way to throw suspicion on the peaceful pro-life majority, especially since our bishops have actually been speaking out on life matters recently.
The report also throws suspicion on people for buying guns and stocking up on ammunition. There is actually a very good, non-extremist reason for people to be doing that. Obama has a very non-vague record on gun-control and has floated the idea of taxing ammunition to make it harder for people who own guns to actually be able to use them. Our right to bear arms (and have a militia without being called extremist, for that matter) is protected by the constitution. People own guns for hunting, to practice target shooting, and to protect their homes and families. When someone breaks into your home, it is a lot more comforting to be able to protect them yourself instead of having to wait for the cops to show up and worrying what will happen in the meantime. People who have this practical view can, by the vagueness of the DHS report, be labelled extremists because their behavior is listed as potentially extremist. The man in Scranton Heights, PA, who shot and killed three police officers is held up as an example because he supposedly was afraid of Obama taking away gun rights. What about the man LA who shot and killed four police officers? He was also a rapist, but because he's not "right-wing", he's not an enemy of the state.
Basically, the report seems to make sweeping generalizations that anyone conservative is potentially dangerous. There are no specific groups listed, except racist groups, just political points of view that should be red-flags. This scares me because the average person who hears news without critically examining it (we are a pretty apathetic nation) gets the impression that pro-lifers, hunting enthusiasts, and veterans are dangerous, just like they got the impression that Obama was well-spoken and politically moderate, and that Michelle Obama doesn't hate this country. I worry about the seeds of division being sown by Janet Napolitano and what fruit they might bear.

Sorry, Liam.

2009-04-17T06:52:00.000-07:00

Wow, my first retraction. I would just like to note that the circumstances surrounding Natasha Richardson's untimely death were a cause of natural death. I was hasty in my interpretation of the media's calling it "brain death", but because of the lateness of medical care she received (by her own doing), there simply was nothing that could have been done to save her. Johnnycatholic sends his apologies and prayers for her family and for the departed.
Note to self: wait for the autopsy report next time, lest ye be judged . . .

Put down

2009-03-18T04:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172009/news/worldnews/natasha_richardson_is_brain_dead_160027.htm

According to the above article, actress Natasha Richardson is brain dead resulting from a ski accident and will be removed from life support forthwith. To paraphrase the great Norm MacDonald, "Note to self: reject marriage proposal from Liam Neeson!"

Pulling Apart for the Sake of the Nation

2009-01-21T14:19:00.000-08:00

I am an occasional listener of conservative talk radio. While i am by no means a "ditto-head", i do find conservative philosophy more compatible with a Catholic society. While i'm normally content to let the experts do their jobs, one caller today on Rush Limbaugh upset me with yet another well-meaning but foolish argument. She told Rush he sounded like an angry petulent child and instead of being upset that we lost the election, he needed to give Obama a chance, stop with the criticism, and help us pull together as a nation. While Rush was being a bit more snarky than usual, the caller was otherwise wrong. If Obama's economic plan is a bad idea, it doesn't matter if 100 people agree with it or 300 million people agree with it, it is still going to run the country into the ground. The only thing that changes is the number of people prepared to deal with the aftermath.
Furthermore, Obama not only doesn't believe that life begins at conception, he's apparently also not sure it begins at birth either, as is indicated by his voting numerous times against the Born Alive Infant Protection act.
We do not owe a president who is wrong loyalty to his wrong ideas. We owe him our prayers and sacrifices for his conversion and respect for the office he holds.

A couple notes on Christmas.

2008-12-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

As fairly new parents Christmas presents some interesting challenges for our family. What do you tell your kids about Santa Claus? How do you create a meaningful emphasis on Jesus "the reason for the season"? While I'm sure we will continue learning and trying new things, a couple of things at this point seem perfectly clear.
#1. Keep gift giving to a minimum. There is no way you can give a 4 year old a mountain of presents and then tell him what's really important is Jesus. It sends a mixed message.
#2. I think lying about Santa sends a message that there is no real wonder to the season so grown ups have to make it up. I believe it undermines what we truly believe as Christians and that we need to keep seeking genuine ways to emphasize God and his miraculous gift of self to the world.
Merry Christmas!
Love,
The Catholic Family

It's Faith AND Reason, Kids

2008-06-20T05:57:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_re_us/faith_healing_death

Faith healers in Oregon are once again making all Christians look like morons by letting their children die of easily treatable diseases. This story brings up many issues that i think it important to analyze.
Firstly, i think we need to examine if the basis for the belief that Christians should shun doctors in favor of God's healing. We do definitely see in the Bible that Jesus and his apostles healed the sick. However, it's typically things like leprosy that a doctor in those days could not heal. In the Catholic Church today, we see that saints intercede for healings also in things where medical science cannot help, such as multiple sclerosis. I think it is reasonable, therefore, to view doctors and medical science as a gift from God with prayer as a backup. God does not want us to be too prideful in the abilities of man, of course, but he does give us the ability to become doctors and heal with ordinary means. I think by shunning doctors, you are prideful in the same way as someone who denies that a saint's prayers can be helpful. God works in people and wishes you to find Him in your brothers and sisters. It is humbling to accept help from others and that is spiritually nourishing.
I think the national media picked this story up because they like ridiculing Christians and also are hoping it will encourage support fo legislation that forces Christian parents to get immoral treatments for their children in less serious instances, like the HPV vaccine. Because evil forces like that are at work in this world, it is important that our public actions be authentically Christian, stemming from both faith and reason. Otherwise we look like the superstitious nutjobs everyone thinks we are.

Keep Your Ovaries Off Our Rosaries

2008-05-30T09:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/index.html
Ah, yes, once again the secular media is having a field day painting the Catholic Church as a misogynistic and patriarchal organization. I don't really know how to break this down into an argument the average American can understand. With the Feminist Revolution having firmly indoctrinated recent generations, it is hard to explain to people why telling a woman she and the rest of her gender are excluded from something isn't "mean".
From a Biblical perspective, it's pretty clear that women were never meant to be priests. When God dwelt with Moses, the Aaronic priesthood was all male despite Miriam's active role in Moses' life. Many Levitical laws were given in order to help the Israelites break from pagan influence and to sow the seeds for Christianity. It would have been an ideal time to establish women's role as spiritual leaders.
Jesus never called females as apostles, despite having Mary Magdalene and His mother around quite a bit. Surely there were women around who would have fit the bill if God had intended it to be so.
It is hard to make this argument with a celibate priesthood, because a woman called to celibacy would not be impeded by motherhood from serving full time as a priest. Therefore, you simply have to say that God intended for men to lead society and for women to follow that lead. That automatically attacks the pride response in people when you tell them some other person has authority over them (how many people embrace "celibate old men telling them what they can't do in the bedroom"?), but really shouldn't. Obviously if a man asks a woman to sleep with him, the woman has an obligation to refuse, which means that God expects her to engage her brain in learning His divine laws and to follow them in her life.
You can also support this statement biblically by demonstrating that Adam should have not followed Eve's lead in eating the apple, but because he shirked his decision-making duty, we all suffer the consequences to this day.
Instead of seeing male headship as a slap at women, it really ought to be seen from it's true perspective. Men tend to be lazy. Men would be more than willing to let women do everything in society, Church, anywhere and they would only lift a finger when it meant they would get food or sex. By making them responsible for women and children, God gave men a mission and a purpose, a reason to not be lazy, a punishment for failure. Women (usually) are not lazy in the second fiddle position. They clean, cook, budget, rear children, attend pta meetings and playgroups to improve things for their kids and a million other things that men would probably not do if left to their own devices. When you start letting women be priests, men start slacking and women end up running themselves ragged trying to do everything while men waste away in front of the tv or internet porn. Denying women the priesthood doesn't tear women down, it builds men up and, like it or not, women need men to be built up. Society functions best when both halves act responsibly. Look at how it breaks down when a man walks out on his wife and kids.
At any rate, one need look no further than to churches that do permit female clergy to see my point. Slowly but surely, the number of female clergy grows and the number of parishioners shrinks. So to recap: men need the priesthood because they're lazy, women need to quit butching their hair and worshipping trees, and we all could stand to be a bit more responsible in this world and a bit more humble and obedient to God.

Could You Please Be a Little More Pointless?

2008-05-10T08:55:00.000-07:00

http://www.ucanews.com/html/ucan/f_dishpatch.asp?title=%20%20Theologians%20Ask%20Church%20To%20Shed%20All-Knowing%20Attitude&ucalang=English_../news_report/english/2008/05/w2/thu/IA04943Rg.txt
Reading through this article, one gets the feeling that the theologians and nuns making this proposition are unfamiliar with the definition of 'religion'. They seem to have it confused with "charitable organization". The primary purpose of religion is to connect people with God. The Catholic Church engages in charitable acts because #1. Jesus served us and asked us to serve others and, #2. we understand that it is hard to fathom God as a loving father when your temporal needs are not met. If your children are starving to death in your arms, God does not seem in your midst.
The problem with the Church shedding its "all-knowing" attitude is that if the Church isn't grounded in truth (all-knowing) then there's no point in following the Christian exhortation to love one another. There is no point in service.
These theologians promote relativism, whether they know it or not. We are all children of God, but just being nice to people isn't going to make the world a better place. We have to give other people a reason to NOT be selfish. Helping people understand their dignity in the Christian God and the lack of dignity in selfishness not only makes the world a better place, but also prepares them for the eternal afterlife. I don't presume to judge these theologians and nuns, but it doesn't seem like the wellbeing of the eternal souls of humanity is at the forefront of their argumentation. They seem to be seeking the path of least resistance in the current life.

Uh, Honduras . . . Shut Up.

2008-05-09T16:29:00.000-07:00

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58339
Ah, yet another non-American deciding what's best for US citizens. Firstly, the border wall in San Diego was very effective in reducing illegal immigration and their crime rate dropped 40%. Therefore his belief that a wall won't work needs to be supported by counter-evidence. Secondly, Cardinal Maradiaga ignores the fact that a nation has a duty to protect its citizens. When people come in illegally, we don't know if they're murderers, rapists, and drug dealers, or just average joses looking to make money to support their families. Mexico needs to respect our sovreignty and their citizens need to enter our country legally. Thirdly, he is ignorant of the fact that when a developed nation is inundated with a less developed populace, it tends to drag the standard of living in the developed nation down. Now i'm not saying our immigration laws are perfect or that only highly skilled geniuses should be allowed to come here, but there must be limits and regulations. And finally, why is no one chewing out the Mexican government for not fixing the corruption and increasing the standard of living for its own citizens? Doesn't the fact that so many people want to jump ship tell you that maybe Mexico ought to be getting the criticism instead of the US? I love Latinos and more orthodox Catholics in the US would certainly be a boon, but i want them to come legally and for the right reasons.
P.S. This has nothing to do with anything the Holy Father said while he was in the US. I love Benedict! If he says it needs to be a land of opportunity for all, fine! But he has also criticized the Mexican government and also didn't say anything about coming here illegally being okay. Just FYI.

News Flash: Not Having Sex May Prevent AIDS

2008-05-09T15:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58332
I don't think i've ever been so happy in my life. A research team from the Harvard School of Public Health has done a study that found that abstinence promotion has been effective in reducing the spread of HIV in African nations while condom promotion has done NOTHING! Ahahahahahahaha!
The study must be credible because i can't see any secular university promoting abstinence unless they simply had to look at their research results honestly. The Catholic Church in the US is too busy paying off sex abuse lawsuits to have any extra cash to bribe research institutes.
This may be repetitive, but as an average Catholic blogger I feel it my duty to repeat easily digestible arguments for average Catholics to easily regurgitate to their non-Catholic/bad Catholic family, friends and coworkers. The reason condom promotion fails is the psychological impact it has on a populace. When you tell people it's okay to live recklessly as long as they take precautions, it sends a mixed message. People will start living more recklessly, but may or may not take precautions. They know there is a "safe" way to do things, so it gives them a false sense of security whether they're using a condom or not. Then, of course, there is condom failure whether by manufacturer error or "pilot error", but i digress. Basically, many secular arguments, like condom promotion, sound very logical on paper, but the reason research will prove them wrong is because they fail to take into account the fact that we are human beings, not robots, and when society lowers the bar for personal accountability, we typically devolve.
You may want to save this link because i'm doubting this story will be readily available in mass media.

Critical Mass

2008-05-05T14:44:00.000-07:00

On Youtube there is a video titled "Pissed Catholic Mother". In this video a kid told his mom he had become an atheist. She responded with much profanity and threatened the child by denying him Christmas gifts. She was incapapable of presenting a reasoned response to the arguments given by her son. She seemed like the type of mother who went to Church simply because that is what you are "supposed" to do. That is all well and good, but if you don't understand what the Church really teaches then you cannot keep your kids Catholic.
In the responses to this video, it was atheist after atheist congratulating the kid and showing their utter ignorance of the teachings of Christianity by condemning some ridiculous parody of what Christianity actually is. Furthermore, they condemn all Christians as being intolerant of atheists. I wonder if these people have ever studied what happens to Christians when a government is atheist. To me this represents a need to inundate the world as much as possible with the truths of Christ's Church if for no other reason than that we don't have to hear people embarrass themselves with their ignorance. You can find the video by going to http//:youtube.com and doing a search for the title mentioned above, but it is not for the person with sensitive ears. It is, however, a documented instance of the weakness of cultural Catholicism.

Victims of Their Own Success

2008-05-05T05:56:00.000-07:00

It has been said before but bears repeating: the "liberal Catholic" movement is undoing itself. By denying the teaching authority of the Church, they give younger generations no reason to stay in her. Most millenials may agree with the liberal perspective on social issues like contraception, but if the Church is wrong about so much that's so important, why not sleep in on Sundays? I was pleased to see that the realization of this fact is starting to sink in, albeit too late, as is noted in this Time magazine article quotation from Fr. Tom Reese, former editor of America magazine.
"But the familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades. Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they�re happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."

All a faithful Catholic need do is take as active a role in your Church as possible, raise your kids in the fullness of Truth, and wait for them to take over. By the next generation, apathy will have set in and those with a desire to "change the Church!" will be retired.
On a final note, I am reminded of the teaching that good does not need evil to survive. Evil needs good to survive. Evil will eat everything good, and when that is all gone, it will turn in on itself and be destroyed. Good is self-sustaining. When a movement like liberalism within the Church enters the phase of self-destruction, it's not hard to recognize it's origin.

Mark My Words, You'll Rue Brittania

2008-05-03T15:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58181

I'm gravely disappointed in this story. I think Autumn is a fool for renouncing her Catholic faith, though i'm sure she fancies herself terribly romantic and devoted to her man. This seems like evidence that a smaller and purer Church would be preferrable. What good is it to have 1.1 billion Catholics in the world if the vast majority of them would apostasize for a Klondike bar? Or in this case, a one in a trillion shot at the British monarchy?

The Roads in Hell are Paved with Skulls of Bishops

2008-04-27T05:40:00.001-07:00

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/04/10/why-the-pope-is-wrong-about-condoms.html
This has been an irritant for a long time. You show up in Rustenberg, South Africa, and discover a large percentage of the women have HIV because they are forced to sell their bodies for food. The good bishop's solution? Permit them to use condoms so they can continue prostituting in a more safe manner. Now I was thinking perhaps a food pantry where they could get food for their children without having to trade the core of their being for a meal, but maybe that's why i'm not a bishop.

Oh, Mein Papa

2008-04-26T17:59:00.000-07:00

While researching my beloved Franciscan patron, Padre Pio, I stumbled across several disturbing articles indicating he faked his stigmata using carbolic acid. Historian Sergio Luzzatto found a single document in the Vatican library, testimony from a woman who claimed Padre Pio asked her to get him 4 grams of carbolic acid and some other supplies. He told her it was for sterilizing needles.
So the author draws the conclusion that a single piece of circumstantial evidence is enough to prove conclusively that the stigmata was a hoax. It seems to me that if, over the course of 50 years of stigmata only one person was found who supplied carbolic acid that the evidence is too weak to be conclusive. Furthermore, the Vatican investigators who looked into his cause for canonization found that Padre Pio and another priest were having to care for victims of the Spanish flu which was raging at the time and were actually sterilizing needles with carbolic acid. Furthermore, when St. Pio died, his hands bore no stigmata wounds nor even a scar. It seems if someone were using carbolic acid to fake stigmata, that would probably leave some kind of mark with even infrequent application.
To be fair, i'm sure Luzzatto's book has other damning evidence building a case against St. Pio. However, as quickly as he overlooked the obvious, that this evidence is circumstantial and doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he probably isn't the most unbiased and credible of historians. St. Pio pray for us.

Who Arted?

2008-04-25T04:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D904AFH80&show_article=1
Initially i was happy about this article because both pro-life and pro-abortion forces agreed it was heinous. I thought that somehow that might be a concession by the on-campus pro-abort representative that human life was destroyed in abortion. But alas. Then I realized that pro-aborts view pregnancy as a disease. It would be like someone intentionally getting cancer and then removing the tumors herself. That would trivialize the pain felt by cancer survivors and would explain why the pro-aborts were against this self-proclaimed "artist".
So now i'm going to go into why art has been annihilated by imaginative people with no talent. The artist in this story claims the whole abortion hoax was an elaborate performance art done for her senior project. If performance art involves setting up something that will make a whole bunch of people outraged, then Michael Savage is perhaps the greatest artist of our time.
I took a philosophy class on aesthetics and still have no idea why Duchamps' readymades were considered art. I think it's a classic case of the emperor's new clothes. Art critics were afraid if they didn't praise the stupid and banal as great art, they'd be accused of "not getting it" and missing one of the great artistic geniuses of their time. I think this started after the Renaissance. The Impressionists were dabbling in it, then Picasso came along and art went bye-bye. You no longer need talent, just a gimmick. In the case of corporate art, you need a lot of metal fashioned to resemble nothing.
I don't have a solution, nor do i really care too much. I think a failing grade for the student in the story would be a good start.

Stupid Human Tricks

2008-04-22T04:45:00.000-07:00

I have discovered two things:
#1. I can sum up the movie, October Sky, in two lines of dialogue.
"Daddy, I wanna build rockets."
"Shut up and eat your coal mine!"

#2. Monologuing on a blog is very nice because who doesn't want a soapbox? But it rings a little hollow without feedback. Your respectful comments would be greatly appreciated.

Sowing the Seeds of Lust

2008-04-16T05:12:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_re_us/alaska_radio_insult
This story is obnoxious because it gets into the topic of minorities as victims. The shock jocks in our tale of woe are not chastised for their degradation of women in general, but for degradation of a particular kind of woman. If they had said bedding Jessica Simpson made a man a real Alaskan, no one would object because celebrity women exist to feed our lusts.
I think maybe trying to turn a race of people into a conquest needed to attain some kind of status (Alaskan status, in this case) is worse than a single individual, but if we were as offended by lewd comments about Jessica Simpson, would it devolve into a whole race? It seems as though right now, as long as you keep your degrading comments applicable to ALL women, or women not in protected groups, you're fine.
Women need to stand up for all other women and stop being the type of woman who invites such comments; men need to quit making these comments and consuming lewd images. And above all, I think we need to bear in mind that the Yukon River is the real victim in this story.

1 horse + 1 patoot = marriage

2008-04-16T04:12:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_on_re_us/gay_divorce

The above link goes to a news story indicating that many "gay married couples" are unable to divorce because they "married" in Massachusetts or Vermont, then moved to a state that doesn't recognize "gay marriage", and hence cannot dissolve what doesn't exist.
My first point: This is why Fred Thompson was such a weak and cowardly candidate. He was too busy trying to please everyone that he didn't face the reality of this issue, which is that a constitutional amendment defining marriage IS necessary for exactly this reason. Twenty-some odd states have passed amendments protecting heterosexual marriage. Because they know the popular vote is a lost cause, homosexual activists are going to the courts knowing that they have a better chance of manipulating law with liberal judges than with the American public.
I guess my second point is that this can only be an attempt to force their beliefs on Christian America. If a state doesn't recognize your marriage, you get no benefits from your partner. The only way it could be an issue is if you moved back to the state you were "married" in, in which case you could obtain a "divorce". Quite frankly, if Massachusetts and Vermont want to create this monster, they should have to fix it by altering their divorce laws so the couples don't have the burden of re-establishing residency. If Missouri doesn't recognize your marriage, they shouldn't be burdened with helping dissolve something that doesn't exist.
A third point would be that this is disgusting and i'm pretty sure some of these "couples" used their "marriages" specifically as a tool to force laws to change in all states.
A final point is that i lay blame for this fiasco squarely on the shoulders of contracepting couples. If marriage was still about fostering a stable union for children to reflect a permanent love between man and woman this wouldn't be an issue. Since it's just a 'hopefully permanent' union (you know, unless it just doesn't work out) where you may or may not want kids because you might have a career that's so engrossing and important that you still are entitled to sterilized sex, but no responsibilities that come with that (including responsibilities to your spouse because it just might not work out), we lost our ability to tell all other "couples", no matter now immoral or illogical, that they can't urinate on the sacrament of marriage the same as us.

Why Bad Things Happen to Good People

2008-04-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

If bad things happened only to people who did bad things and good things happened when you did good things, it would impede your free will. You would not choose the right thing for its rightness, but for your own comfort. This is also why God isn't more visible in this world. You know He's always watching you, but if you find a wallet, it's easier to take the money in it (if that's what's in your heart) with the abstract concept of being watched than if a burning bush appeared before you and said, "Just pretend I'm not here."
I'm glad i figured this out before my kids got old enough to ask.

The Mirror has Two Faces

2008-04-15T03:52:00.000-07:00

There's a cunning little forward that comes to my Inbox periodically that I used to think clever until I thought it through a bit deeper. It gives a list of people who mocked God and died horrible deaths, such as John Lennon and his infamous "Bigger than Jesus" proclamation and Marilyn Monroe shooting down Billy Graham's attempt to bring her to Christ. I don't think this should constitute an edifying forward because, #1 it's mean-spirited (sarcasm is one thing, saying people die because they insult God is a level deeper) and #2 a secularist could just as easily make the same case against some of our greatest saints.
- St. Therese the Little Flower devoted her life to loving God in a convent and died a horrible death from tuberculosis.
-St. Maria Goretti lived her life serving others and upholding chastity and was brutally stabbed to death at the age of 11.
-St. Isaac Jogues tried twice to bring the Christian faith to the Iroquois people and was eaten alive.
Makes us look bad, no?
The moral of the story is QUIT SENDING ME FORWARDS!

Don't let the Door Hit Ya

2008-04-14T04:09:00.001-07:00

There's a loverly AP article today on all the different groups of dissenters who will be protesting and (I love this) holding vigils to protest certain teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm sure you can guess what issues are at stake (we're not talking belief in the Incarnation here, folks).
I hate the hubris involved with some of these people so eager to be the ones who "changed the Church". I wish people would think through what exactly it would mean to change Her. It would mean she was some powerful man-made institution that you bent to your will. Your will is not God's will. If it was, you'd be doing what the Church says you should instead of quibbling. I dislike the way women act like the priesthood is something they should be entitled to. It isn't something you earn with hard work and a Phd in Theology, no matter how many years you served as an Extraordinary Minister. If you really believe that the Church let a grave injustice like that pass for 2,000 years, how can you believe she's the one true Church founded by Christ? Why don't you go to the Anglican Church where it's okay to be a lesbian bishop? If that's what you believe God would want, there's an ecclesial community for it already. Go there! I don't understand why you would stay where you think the teachings are bull unless you were just so prideful you wanted everyone on the world stage to see you get your way (which would clinch that you and God were of one mind). I think homosexuals think it would make their disorder "feel" less like a disorder to know a gay lifestyle was in accord with God's plan, which makes them more sympathetic in my mind. As for contraception pushers, reread Humanae Vitae, acknowledge that all that stuff Paul VI predicted has come true, and submit your wills. A three child household will serve you better than a three car garage in the next life. We have a God-approved way of spacing births. Use it! "I don't wanna" is not a good reason for using artificial birth control over nfp.
The other group I find somewhat sympathetic are the clergy sex abuse survivors. Unfortunately Voice of the Faithful is comprised mostly of people who saw the failure of the hierarchy in this matter as an opportunity to take over. However, since injustice was done, I propose a Vatican dungeon where we put abuser priests and bishops as well as bishops who simply moved the abusers around. The Swiss Guard could jab them with sharp sticks for an hour each day to help them work out temporal suffering.
I am grateful the Pope is coming to visit America. I just hope our errant brethren can realize how fortunate we are to have such a leader as he and be brought back into full communion with Holy Mother Church.

The Myth of Choice

2008-04-14T04:09:00.000-07:00

Despite all the feminist rhetoric out there, it takes two people to make a baby. When two people get together and act like the reproductive act won't have consequences, sometimes only one of them is willing to accept responsibility for a resulting child which creates a conflicting situation. If the two are in high school or middle school, then you have potentially four additional parents who can have differing opinions on the matter. If a pregnant woman existed in a vacuum, the choice might be all hers, but since this is reality, other people are impacted by her pregnancy. For this reason, men and women, especially high school kids, need to conduct themselves in such a way that reflects that. When you tell people they can be out of control as long as they protect themselves (use a designated driver if you get drunk, use contraception if you want to have premarital sex) then they get a mixed message that tells them that consequences for bad behavior are bad instead of bad behaviors themselves. When young men are into avoiding consequences and the girl "chooses" to have the baby, the following can result:
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/crime_courts/story/520391.html
If it wasn't the father of the child, then obviously it was someone else who didn't respect her "choice". When society starts down the road of children as burdens, how can we continue to have laws against this sort of "assault"? Our society holds two contradicting views. We cannot continue down a path based on relativism (babies are loud, smelly, and expensive unless you want one, to quote Planned Parenthood).

The Slippery Slope

2008-04-11T06:22:00.000-07:00

I recently read an infuriating essay written on doctor-assisted suicide. There are so many aspects to this issue that really bug me, so i'm going to try to attack the author's points and go even further.
The main point the author argued was that personal autonomy and freedom was more in danger of being eroded by a slippery slope of making doctor-assisted suicide illegal. He said that pro-lifers used logical fallacies in arguing that doctor-assisted suicide would lead to euthanasia and eugenics. Just because they involve a 3rd party doesn't mean they are logically related.
What he fails to address is the psychological impact of "death with dignity" on society. We saw what happened with contraception; what started off as a tool to help married couples space births for legitimate reasons became a tool to help unmarried women avoid pregnancy and married couples to avoid children for illegitimate reasons. We went from a society where children were seen as a natural occurence in marriage (a blessing) to believing children can be burdens if we want to engage in immoral activities without responsibility.
If you look at "death with dignity" you can see how the same thing can so easily occur in the American psyche. What one person deems as an undignified death warranting suicide, another may be willing to tolerate because they see things in life that make living with pain or the embarrassment of a colostomy bag worth dealing with. As soon as one person makes the comment that his/her mother opted for death rather than to be a financial burden or a burden who required care because of her bedridden status or any other trivial reason, a person who wants to continue living for the same trivial reason may feel shame for choosing to be a burden on their family. Her adult children may feel irritation at her selfish choice for life. Pretty soon choosing death with dignity becomes an obligation because other people have decided that your wants are undignified. If you don't think this is realistic, ask a woman who "chose" to have 6 children how many times people have respected her choice despite the fact that she was married and financially stable. We hate kids now; soon we will hate the elderly.
My suspicion is that this is a concerted effort by pro-eugenics people. You really don't need a doctor to commit suicide. If you're in a bad way medically, how hard is it to obtain enough medication to O.D.? How hard is it to kill yourself using conventional methods? What people suffering in chronic pain seek in doctor-assisted suicide is not necessarily help in killing themselves, but rationalization from a higher authority that what they want is acceptable. Suicide carries a negative stigma, but somehow if a doctor says it's okay, it makes you feel better about your decision. In France, a woman recently killed herself after losing a court case to obtain doctor-assistance in the matter. Why did she need to involve a doctor at all? She wanted to feel right about the decision. Family members want reassurance from a doctor that hastening the death of a loved one is acceptable because they feel horrible watching them suffer. These are understandable feelings, but a doctor is not a moral authority, and while easing physical pain is moral and compassionate, killing someone outright is neither.
I think people who suffer with terminal illnesses are being used in the doctor-assisted suicide debate. Instead of being given moral alternatives and counsel by clergy, they are given a bleak analysis by an increasingly indifferent and utilitarian medical staff. Eugenicists know that by gaining respectability for this immoral practice, it helps move things closer to ridding the world of other "useless eaters". How much longer will it remain optional to screen pre-born children for genetic abnormalities? As human beings, it takes love and patience to serve the elderly, the mentally disabled, and other people with less "quality of life". When we as human beings are no longer challenged to love the most vulnerable among us because they have been mercifully exterminated, we become coarsened and weaker.
As Catholics, we need to inform ourselves of Church teaching on this issue, live those teachings when our parents get to that stage, and witness to our children through the way we deal with their grandparents that caring for the sick and disabled is an opportunity for spiritual growth and service to Christ Himself, not a burden. We need to be sure, too, that everything possible is done to alleviate the physical pain of those who suffer so we don't get accused of advocating sadism (thank you very much, Christopher Hitchens). And finally, if we're lucky enough to see our golden years, we need to pray for the strength to endure suffering, the humility to be served as needed, and that our children do what we've taught them in Christ's love.

Adoption: the Ignored Option

2008-04-08T11:29:00.001-07:00

One thing I don't understand is why pro-aborts have been getting away without a good argument against adoption. It seems to me that if a woman CHOOSES to have premarital sex, but can't afford to raise a child that results, she can still finish that college degree if someone else is raising the baby. Adoption also seems ideal in the case of rape. Obviously you don't kill a rapist's child for the sins of the father, but since you didn't seek this pregnancy in love, letting another couple raise the baby is perfectly understandable. Cases of incest, too, because it really seems to be best to get that poor baby away from the messed up family with a quickness.
What advantage does abortion offer over adoption? It essentially boils down to Planned Parenthood's money making agenda that involves selling recreational sex. If a girl carries a child to term and gives it up for adoption, she sees that it is human life she created with the sex act and may rethink the casual attitude PP encourages toward said act. It also hurts more to part with a full-term infant than to believe a piece of tissue was removed from your uterus. The lie becomes more exposed when you bring a child to term.
Many of us know women who casually acknowledge that they weren't ready for a baby and had an abortion. Would they be so cavalier in acknowledging, "Oh, i wasn't ready for a baby, so i gave it up for adoption." Seems more callous to be casual about that. Adoption feels more like an important decision was made because you screwed up and we hope you learned your lesson. Abortion is simply a way to get out of the consequences of your actions. With all rights come responsibilities. If you have a "right" to premarital sex, then you have a responsibility to care for the life that results. When we remove responsibilities from the citizens of our country, we become a weaker nation. When we are murdering children to get out of responsibility, how much further can we really sink?
Abortion is so insidious because it is so hidden. It happens quickly behind closed doors, oftentimes with the mothers not even being fully informed about the life growing within them. We have adoption as an option and as long as we keep letting the pro-aborts ignore that, as long as we let Barak Obama pretend like his daughters will be punished with a baby unless they kill it in the womb, we'll keep on losing the war of words.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!??????

2008-04-08T11:29:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/us_nm/stalker_obrien_dc

Like . . . like he couldn't just stalk some ordinary person from his parish. He HAD to stalk a celebrity. And not even an attractive celebrity that you assume many people stalk. The yuks just don't stop with the Archdiocese of Boston.

Desperately Seeking Relevance

2008-04-07T16:28:00.001-07:00

My pet theory of the day is that rock stars tend to adopt radical causes so that no one will point out how pathetic their job really is. I mean, yeah, Green Day can bash George W. Bush all day, but when all is said and done, do you think they feel a little desperate at the end of the day when they realize they're pushing 40 and their livelihood depends on whether or not 13-year olds still find the "button-down shirt, eyeliner look" in this season?

The Enlightened.

2008-04-07T16:28:00.000-07:00

It's the same story you have heard before, father and mother break up mother leaves with daughter. Thrty years later father reunites with daughter sparks fly, one thing leads to another and well.... You know daughter and father fall in love and have a baby, awwwwwweeeee! This is what happens when you belive that God doesn't exist or that you can create your own morality. Shudder..... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1f_1207557176
Incest is gross, and immoral. What an enlightened world that we live in (sarcasm). This is the logical consequence of the evils of moral relativism and sexual liberation movement. Just watch the video and see the defiant way the woman anounces that they are consenting adults who can do what they want. It is the ultimate attack on the family unit, as it perverts the interior structure of the family and paternal and filial love.

Cowman, Mancow, Can, Mow?

2008-04-06T04:52:00.000-07:00

Check out this story from Catholic World News: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57579
This is crazy! It makes you want to smack someone in the face with a board. Kinda like listening to someone refer to a woman with the word chick......, chickadoo, SMACK!
Why did they bother doing this? Did they think that they were eliminating any ethical concerns over the destruction of human embryos by putting in 1% cow genes and eliminating 1% human genes? What a waste of time, money, and talent! It is just as bad to kill a 99% genetic human as it is a 100% genetic human. It's also disingenuous of them to promise to not let the embryos grow until birth. If it's made in a lab, how will it be "birthed"? Surrogate cow mother? Ew.

Pope Baptizes Moslem

2008-03-29T06:35:00.000-07:00

With all the uproar about the Pope baptizing Magdi Allam, I had hoped that this was a strong statement against Islamic extremism and all the other evil associated with Islam, i.e. stoning rape victims, no religious freedom, kidnapping and killing Archbishop Raho etc.... But then I read this on Catholic World News: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57504
I understand the importance of "dialogue," but I think that Father Lombardi is wrong on the mission of Catholic schools. The CWN reported:
"Father Lombardi took exception to one point that Nayed had made, arguing that it is misguided to charge (as Nayed had) that Christian schools seek to produce converts in Muslim countries. The Vatican spokesman pointed out that in many countries, Catholic schools serve student populations in which the majority "are non-Christian and have happily remained so."
The whole mission of the Catholic church is the salvation of souls, and a huge part of that is helping people to come to the truth of Christ which is part of any Catholic education and should be the underlying motive and goal for all Catholics. Not to the point of proselytization of course but working for the conversion and salvation of souls should be on the list of things that a Catholic school is trying to do. If not I would question the "Catholic" credentials of the school.
Furthermore, Moslem schools actively work "to produce Moslem converts". I wonder if Nayed has ever attacked a Moslem school for that?

Advertising for Dummies

2008-03-28T07:30:00.003-07:00

I'd just like it noted that i think it's awesome how very little Google AdSense cares if their ads actually match the spirit of the blog. Like after the Glenn Beck post, we had an ad for Mormon singles dating and now we have the NYTimes.com. It's like the Fairness Doctrine has passed and this is how we balance. What happens if i post a comment about abortion?

We don't need no education

2008-03-28T07:30:00.001-07:00

Parents in this country are coming dangerously close to losing all rights to their children. The recent hullaballoo in California over homeschooling should make this pretty obvious. For now the ruling is back in favor of parents, but for how long? It seems like many times, radical legislation is posited just to get people used to the idea so that within 10 years, it doesn't seem so crazy. Right now there are probably watchdogs searching for homeschooled children who aren't successful academically so they can once again make a case that the parents should have teaching degrees or not be permitted to homeschool at all. They will cite any infraction as clearcut evidence that the state is the only body qualified to "educate" our children and then their journey to the darkside will be complete. We can most likely look for another push to be made within a few years. Nazi Germany banned homeschooling so the government had complete access to the youths. It's interesting that the pro-homosexual lobby groups are making the same move.

Political Observation

2008-03-25T15:47:00.000-07:00

The facts are that none of the candidates are morally acceptable. None of them has a pro-life stance. Hillary and Obama are both fully pro abortion to the point of allowing partial birth abortion, and McCain is pro embryonic stem cell research. This is a crock!
Much like the conservative talk radio hosts out there, it is impossible to find one that is fully in accord with Catholic teaching. This state of affairs is very frustrating. As for me I am voting for Rick Santorum as a write-in candidate.

Glenn Beck, Awwwwwww Nooooooooo!

2008-03-20T12:25:00.000-07:00

I've given up listening to Glenn Beck because there's no one more anti-Catholic than an ex-Catholic (a "raised-Catholic," if you will). Most recently he declared that the Church kept the mass in Latin so no one would understand it. Brilliant. Because that's why St. Jerome translated it into Latin in the first place.
The fact is, Glenn Beck is a Mormon. For some reason, I can take anti-Catholicism from Protestants and it hurts much less than someone who was gullible enough to fall for Mormonism. When your religion isn't even 200 years old, it stings far more. When your religion can easily be disproven with a science and/or history textbook, it stings far more. Protestants at least use the Bible to try to disprove Catholic teachings. Mormons don't use the Bible or even the Book of Mormon for that matter. They're people who believe Joseph Smith's church is teaching truth almost 200 years going strong, but Jesus' Church couldn't even pass the 100 year mark despite His assurance that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it".
I don't hate Glenn Beck, but I can't listen to him anymore. You're free to believe whatever you want in this country, but if your church leader dispensed with divine revelation so your territory could become a state, you might want to rethink it.
Mormonism: a Poor Alternative to Thinking.

Apocalypse Now!

2008-03-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

With the election upcoming, I know many of us Catholics are hoping Jesus comes back to save us from the audacity of hope. However, we can always pray and hope for a miracle. That being said, i wanted to notify people of www.electionnovena.org which is asking for a 54 day rosary novena for a positive election outcome. Also St. Thomas More is the patron saint of politicians and statesmen, so for extra credit you can pray for the candidates to stop being nightmares wrapped in bad dreams. St. Monica prayed 20 years for Augustine and we only have 7 months, so get crackin'!

So This is Blog

2008-03-17T15:11:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the blog to neither end nor begin all blogs. The focus here is on the world common to all men viewed through the Catholic perspective (which means not every single post will be on Church goings-on). Anyhoo, don't expect much.