May 27 was the 135th birthday of the great British Apostle of Common Sense, G.K. Chesterton. Of course, the last 73 of those days have been celebrated by our dear friend Gilbert in what one can only hope are far, far better environs.
May 28 came and went, and I completely neglected to acknowledge that this blog is now one year old, and already a heck of a lot more mature than I am :-) It's amazing how quickly time passes. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Friday, May 29, 2009
Regarding the Nature of Catholic Truth
Note: This is a slightly reworded version of a comment I left in a thread from another blog in response to a person who, upon being pressed for a rationale for supporting the actions of Fr. Jenkins in defying the USCCB and Canon Law mandates to honor a man who is hostile to Catholic moral theology, responded with the tiresome red herring of the Church sex abuse scandal, as though this somehow validated Fr. Jenkins' actions. This reworded version first appeared on my Facebook profile.
There is a growing tendency among certain people to assume that sinful behavior on the part of some somehow affects the availability of sanctifying grace for all. My comments address this fallacy as well.
We often speak of finding healing with sins committed by Catholics; but the sins committed by Catholics are precisely the result of failing to adhere to Catholic moral doctrine. It is something we have all been guilty of, as we share the same fallen nature. But healing comes through acknowledging our own errors and seeking forgiveness for them, and to forgive others for the errors committed against us. One need only read the Catechism to see the truth of this. Healing comes by acknowledging what the truth is, and seeking to live by it.
We often speak of unity in the Church, but there would be no divisions among Catholics in the first place if everyone followed the true teachings of the Church. No less a person than St. John wrote in his second Epistle (2 John 1:9-11): “Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 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.” (NAB translation)
Those are harsh words, indeed; but let us remember that they are, first and foremost, a plea for unity, and a warning against those who, under the guise of being Catholic, seek to distort the Church’s teachings. We are called to pray for those who misrepresent the truth, but not to heed their counsel. Yet when a person speaks the truth, we are called to heed their counsel regardless of the personal sanctity of the speaker. The Church does not teach that a man must be holy to speak the words of truth. Even the priests who committed those atrocious acts of sexual abuse against predominantly teenage boys celebrated valid Masses and consecrated the Eucharist validly, because their ability to celebrate the sacraments depends not on their personal sanctity, but on the faculties bestowed upon them at the time of their ordination. This is not to say, of course, that the sinful behavior of a priest is without consequences. As the 19th century poet Clemens Brentano once wrote: “Just as the sacrifice on Calvary was accomplished by the cruelty of ungodly priests and by the bloodthirsty hands of brutal executioners, so is the sacrifice of the Mass, even when unworthily celebrated, a true sacrifice; but the guilty and unworthy priest who celebrates it plays the part not only of the Jewish priests who condemned Our Lord but also of the soldiers who crucified Him.” St. Paul says that he who eats the True Body and drinks the True Blood unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Note that he did not say that the unworthy man ate and drank judgment upon others.
Now I say the above things not to encourage people to seek the unholiest of men for spiritual direction, but rather to show that the foundation of the Church and her theology is not the teachings and actions of men, but rather the teaching and action of the God-man, who in His words and deeds – but more importantly, in His person! – was the fullness of Divine Revelation. Had the Church relied on the unwavering holiness of her members, she would have crumbled centuries ago. But the Church stands firm despite the failings of man, and the Sacraments are available to us despite the moral shortcomings of those who confer them. This is because the Church is safeguarded against the gates of hell by the promise Jesus made to St. Peter, and not by the words and actions of men. And as the mission of the Church is to spread the Good News – to spread the truth – it is fitting that God has also given us the assurance of freedom from error when the Church pronounces on matters of faith and morals. This is not to give the temporal leaders of the Church greater power, but rather to assist them in their ability to serve His Church faithfully. That there are those who fail to carry out their obligation to spread the truth faithfully is a sad reality. That this failure often manifests itself in moral failure is also a reality. And the fact that those who remain in the truth are also guilty of moral failure is, likewise, a sad reality. We are a body of sinners, after all. But what separates the faithful priests and faithful Catholics from the unfaithful priests and unfaithful Catholics is the willingness to acknowledge personal errors and to seek forgiveness for those errors. It is the unrepentant man who breaks faith, and it is the unrepentant man seeking to validate his errors rather than confess them who is the true agent of division within the Church.
It is important in talking about things like the sex abuse and Notre Dame commencement scandals to explain what exactly scandal is. The modern world would have us believe that scandal occurs when unworthy behavior is made public knowledge. In actuality, scandal occurs when one person leads another into sin. The sex abuse that was committed by some priests – who were predominantly homosexual pederasts rather than pedophiles – is not scandal unless the sexual behavior was willingly reciprocated by the victim. It is, more properly, a violation, because if the victim is an unwilling participant, then the victim is not sinning, since the deliberate intent required for sin to take place is not there. Only the perpetrator sins, and there is no scandal. Where scandal takes place is when a person in a position of authority knows of the abuse and does nothing about it, thus enabling the perpetrator to commit sin. There the higher authority can be said to be giving scandal. And yes, those individuals who allowed it to continue deserve their punishment. They also deserve the same forgiveness accorded to any other sinner, and deserve absolution if there is genuine remorse for the sinful behavior.
The Notre Dame affair is a somewhat different creature. Fr. Jenkins gave scandal to the Catholic faithful by using his authority as President of a Catholic university to publicly honor – in the name of Catholic higher education – a man who betrays the most fundamental beliefs about the dignity and inviolability of human life, thus creating the impression that it was alright to do this. I’ve heard all the arguments about how certain aspects of Obama’s teaching are in line with Catholic teaching. Any heretic can say the same, since all heresy is based on some truth, and is distinguishable from Catholic teaching only by the lies that it propagates. To say that Obama deserved to be honored despite the disagreements is tantamount to saying that the great heretics of ages past – such as Arius and Pelagius – likewise deserved to be honored by Catholic institutions for their commitment to those aspects of Catholic teaching they happened to agree with, despite their very fierce disagreement with the Church on some very crucial and non-negotiable matters.
I’ve also heard the straw man “promoting dialogue” and “other politicians support war and the death penalty which makes them just as bad” arguments used in support of giving Obama an honorary degree. However, Obama is on record as supporting both war and the death penalty, and the speech was delivered to a captive audience with no possibility given for a follow up dialogue, so even if those arguments had any merit in relation to Obama’s honorary degree – and they do not – neither of them is truly applicable in the present discussion.
The point is, Fr. Jenkins knowingly acted not only against the mandates of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (which in and of itself is not necessarily punishable, since the USCCB lacks the authority to either pronounce on such matters or to enforce such pronunciations), but also against canon law mandates (a fact confirmed by the head of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura and chief canon lawyer of the Church, Archbishop Raymond Burke; and violation of a canon law mandate is very much punishable). He could have repented and rescinded the offer of an honorary degree and still allowed Obama to speak. That would have ended the scandal (though not the controversy) before it had fairly begun, since no honor would have been bestowed. Instead, he remained obstinate in his error, and continued to use fallacious arguments to support his decision (and dishonestly continued to use those arguments even after his local Bishop, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, and nearly a third of the Bishops of the United States all pointed out the errors inherent in those arguments). Fr. Jenkins is the classic definition of a man who knowingly led others into scandal by creating the impression among Catholics that it was okay – even laudatory! – to honor such a man, and then he proceeded to compound the problem by attempting to validate his error in the eyes of the Church, which makes him the true source of division in this whole sorry affair. We are called to forgive Fr. Jenkins for the scandal that he gave; but we are also obligated to call him to repent, and to pray that he might experience that repentance and to seek absolution for his error.
I have noticed, by the way, that when people are called to explain their support for individuals who oppose the Church’s teachings on the dignity and inviolability of human life, they have a tendency to yell, “sex abuse scandal!” as though this somehow validates their viewpoint. It doesn’t even come close to doing that. The sex abuse issue is indeed a tragic one, but is completely separate from the present discussion. It is not a valid answer to how a person believes that they can in good conscience support an opponent of the Church’s most fundamental moral teachings. That question still awaits an answer…
There is a growing tendency among certain people to assume that sinful behavior on the part of some somehow affects the availability of sanctifying grace for all. My comments address this fallacy as well.
We often speak of finding healing with sins committed by Catholics; but the sins committed by Catholics are precisely the result of failing to adhere to Catholic moral doctrine. It is something we have all been guilty of, as we share the same fallen nature. But healing comes through acknowledging our own errors and seeking forgiveness for them, and to forgive others for the errors committed against us. One need only read the Catechism to see the truth of this. Healing comes by acknowledging what the truth is, and seeking to live by it.
We often speak of unity in the Church, but there would be no divisions among Catholics in the first place if everyone followed the true teachings of the Church. No less a person than St. John wrote in his second Epistle (2 John 1:9-11): “Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 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.” (NAB translation)
Those are harsh words, indeed; but let us remember that they are, first and foremost, a plea for unity, and a warning against those who, under the guise of being Catholic, seek to distort the Church’s teachings. We are called to pray for those who misrepresent the truth, but not to heed their counsel. Yet when a person speaks the truth, we are called to heed their counsel regardless of the personal sanctity of the speaker. The Church does not teach that a man must be holy to speak the words of truth. Even the priests who committed those atrocious acts of sexual abuse against predominantly teenage boys celebrated valid Masses and consecrated the Eucharist validly, because their ability to celebrate the sacraments depends not on their personal sanctity, but on the faculties bestowed upon them at the time of their ordination. This is not to say, of course, that the sinful behavior of a priest is without consequences. As the 19th century poet Clemens Brentano once wrote: “Just as the sacrifice on Calvary was accomplished by the cruelty of ungodly priests and by the bloodthirsty hands of brutal executioners, so is the sacrifice of the Mass, even when unworthily celebrated, a true sacrifice; but the guilty and unworthy priest who celebrates it plays the part not only of the Jewish priests who condemned Our Lord but also of the soldiers who crucified Him.” St. Paul says that he who eats the True Body and drinks the True Blood unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Note that he did not say that the unworthy man ate and drank judgment upon others.
Now I say the above things not to encourage people to seek the unholiest of men for spiritual direction, but rather to show that the foundation of the Church and her theology is not the teachings and actions of men, but rather the teaching and action of the God-man, who in His words and deeds – but more importantly, in His person! – was the fullness of Divine Revelation. Had the Church relied on the unwavering holiness of her members, she would have crumbled centuries ago. But the Church stands firm despite the failings of man, and the Sacraments are available to us despite the moral shortcomings of those who confer them. This is because the Church is safeguarded against the gates of hell by the promise Jesus made to St. Peter, and not by the words and actions of men. And as the mission of the Church is to spread the Good News – to spread the truth – it is fitting that God has also given us the assurance of freedom from error when the Church pronounces on matters of faith and morals. This is not to give the temporal leaders of the Church greater power, but rather to assist them in their ability to serve His Church faithfully. That there are those who fail to carry out their obligation to spread the truth faithfully is a sad reality. That this failure often manifests itself in moral failure is also a reality. And the fact that those who remain in the truth are also guilty of moral failure is, likewise, a sad reality. We are a body of sinners, after all. But what separates the faithful priests and faithful Catholics from the unfaithful priests and unfaithful Catholics is the willingness to acknowledge personal errors and to seek forgiveness for those errors. It is the unrepentant man who breaks faith, and it is the unrepentant man seeking to validate his errors rather than confess them who is the true agent of division within the Church.
It is important in talking about things like the sex abuse and Notre Dame commencement scandals to explain what exactly scandal is. The modern world would have us believe that scandal occurs when unworthy behavior is made public knowledge. In actuality, scandal occurs when one person leads another into sin. The sex abuse that was committed by some priests – who were predominantly homosexual pederasts rather than pedophiles – is not scandal unless the sexual behavior was willingly reciprocated by the victim. It is, more properly, a violation, because if the victim is an unwilling participant, then the victim is not sinning, since the deliberate intent required for sin to take place is not there. Only the perpetrator sins, and there is no scandal. Where scandal takes place is when a person in a position of authority knows of the abuse and does nothing about it, thus enabling the perpetrator to commit sin. There the higher authority can be said to be giving scandal. And yes, those individuals who allowed it to continue deserve their punishment. They also deserve the same forgiveness accorded to any other sinner, and deserve absolution if there is genuine remorse for the sinful behavior.
The Notre Dame affair is a somewhat different creature. Fr. Jenkins gave scandal to the Catholic faithful by using his authority as President of a Catholic university to publicly honor – in the name of Catholic higher education – a man who betrays the most fundamental beliefs about the dignity and inviolability of human life, thus creating the impression that it was alright to do this. I’ve heard all the arguments about how certain aspects of Obama’s teaching are in line with Catholic teaching. Any heretic can say the same, since all heresy is based on some truth, and is distinguishable from Catholic teaching only by the lies that it propagates. To say that Obama deserved to be honored despite the disagreements is tantamount to saying that the great heretics of ages past – such as Arius and Pelagius – likewise deserved to be honored by Catholic institutions for their commitment to those aspects of Catholic teaching they happened to agree with, despite their very fierce disagreement with the Church on some very crucial and non-negotiable matters.
I’ve also heard the straw man “promoting dialogue” and “other politicians support war and the death penalty which makes them just as bad” arguments used in support of giving Obama an honorary degree. However, Obama is on record as supporting both war and the death penalty, and the speech was delivered to a captive audience with no possibility given for a follow up dialogue, so even if those arguments had any merit in relation to Obama’s honorary degree – and they do not – neither of them is truly applicable in the present discussion.
The point is, Fr. Jenkins knowingly acted not only against the mandates of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (which in and of itself is not necessarily punishable, since the USCCB lacks the authority to either pronounce on such matters or to enforce such pronunciations), but also against canon law mandates (a fact confirmed by the head of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura and chief canon lawyer of the Church, Archbishop Raymond Burke; and violation of a canon law mandate is very much punishable). He could have repented and rescinded the offer of an honorary degree and still allowed Obama to speak. That would have ended the scandal (though not the controversy) before it had fairly begun, since no honor would have been bestowed. Instead, he remained obstinate in his error, and continued to use fallacious arguments to support his decision (and dishonestly continued to use those arguments even after his local Bishop, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, and nearly a third of the Bishops of the United States all pointed out the errors inherent in those arguments). Fr. Jenkins is the classic definition of a man who knowingly led others into scandal by creating the impression among Catholics that it was okay – even laudatory! – to honor such a man, and then he proceeded to compound the problem by attempting to validate his error in the eyes of the Church, which makes him the true source of division in this whole sorry affair. We are called to forgive Fr. Jenkins for the scandal that he gave; but we are also obligated to call him to repent, and to pray that he might experience that repentance and to seek absolution for his error.
I have noticed, by the way, that when people are called to explain their support for individuals who oppose the Church’s teachings on the dignity and inviolability of human life, they have a tendency to yell, “sex abuse scandal!” as though this somehow validates their viewpoint. It doesn’t even come close to doing that. The sex abuse issue is indeed a tragic one, but is completely separate from the present discussion. It is not a valid answer to how a person believes that they can in good conscience support an opponent of the Church’s most fundamental moral teachings. That question still awaits an answer…
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Time To Fire Giovanni Maria Vian As Editor Of L'Osservatore Romano
Or else drop L'Osservatore Romano as an official Vatican publication.
Giovanni Maria Vian has been a shameless Obama apologist from day one, and has prided himself on hiring a "religiously diverse" staff to write for a newspaper whose entire (and increasingly less fulfilled) purpose is to comment on Catholic matters and on world events from a Catholic perspective. There has been a great deal of other theologically questionable material printed in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano under Maria Vian's watch.
Deal Hudson has written a great piece, linked to by LifeNews.com, describing the out and out lies perpretated by Maria Vian, which includes a specific denial that Obama is pro-abortion. As Hudson so eloquently explains it:
"For President Obama's Catholic outreach effort, this is a dream come true. Obama's Catholic advisers have received a virtual Vatican imprimatur on his abortion reduction message to Catholics. The Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Catholics United, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good will trumpet this message loudly and in unison.
It doesn't matter that not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican. That is a distinction that 99.9 percent of Catholic voters will neither know nor grasp.
All that will matter on the ground is that the Vatican newspaper and its editor have confirmed what Obama's Catholic supporters have claimed all along: Obama seeks a "common ground on abortion," avoids harsh polemics, prudently seeks to "reduce abortions," and cannot therefore be called "pro-abortion."
The subliminal suggestion will be: The Vatican believes this, so why not you? This is how smart political campaigns use the media -- especially media with an authoritative and respected voice. And what's more authoritative and trustworthy to Catholics than the Vatican newspaper?"
Go back and read that again. Not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican.
When James Salt of Catholics United tried to personally silence my criticisms of Obama, he cited an obscure L'Osservatore Romano article praising Obama's alleged rise above divisive partisan politics to try to show that the Vatican approved of Obama. He did not, of course, cite the full article, nor would he name the actual source of the quote he cited. Instead, he made the blatantly dishonest claim that the source had to be either Benedict XVI or his Secretary of State, given the newspaper's official status. I knew that could not be the case, and stated as much, and pressed him for both the name of the source of the quote and the context in which it was written, at which point he did what he and his friends at Catholics United/Catholics in Alliance always do when giving a straight answer to a question would undermine their argument: he changed the subject. At the time, I was relatively ignorant of just how scandalous the actions of L'Osservatore Romano had become. Now I know, and will do my best to make sure that those who know me or read this blog know as well.
Don't let fraudulent "Catholic" groups like Catholics United/Catholics in Alliance and other Obama cheerleaders use L'Osservatore Romano as a weapon to "legitimize" Obama's fiercely anti-Catholic stances. I'll repeat the statement for the third time, as it is crucial that people understand this: not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican. If you read the newspaper, trust nothing as an official position of the Vatican unless it is directly attributable to an official Vatican source, because it could well be Giovanni Maria Vian and his subordinates looking to undermine the Church's moral authority in defense of a partisan political agenda. I pray that the Vatican will soon put an end to this practice by either ridding themselves of Maria Vian's subversive influence or severing its ties with the paper altogether. Please read the linked article for more information. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Giovanni Maria Vian has been a shameless Obama apologist from day one, and has prided himself on hiring a "religiously diverse" staff to write for a newspaper whose entire (and increasingly less fulfilled) purpose is to comment on Catholic matters and on world events from a Catholic perspective. There has been a great deal of other theologically questionable material printed in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano under Maria Vian's watch.
Deal Hudson has written a great piece, linked to by LifeNews.com, describing the out and out lies perpretated by Maria Vian, which includes a specific denial that Obama is pro-abortion. As Hudson so eloquently explains it:
"For President Obama's Catholic outreach effort, this is a dream come true. Obama's Catholic advisers have received a virtual Vatican imprimatur on his abortion reduction message to Catholics. The Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Catholics United, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good will trumpet this message loudly and in unison.
It doesn't matter that not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican. That is a distinction that 99.9 percent of Catholic voters will neither know nor grasp.
All that will matter on the ground is that the Vatican newspaper and its editor have confirmed what Obama's Catholic supporters have claimed all along: Obama seeks a "common ground on abortion," avoids harsh polemics, prudently seeks to "reduce abortions," and cannot therefore be called "pro-abortion."
The subliminal suggestion will be: The Vatican believes this, so why not you? This is how smart political campaigns use the media -- especially media with an authoritative and respected voice. And what's more authoritative and trustworthy to Catholics than the Vatican newspaper?"
Go back and read that again. Not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican.
When James Salt of Catholics United tried to personally silence my criticisms of Obama, he cited an obscure L'Osservatore Romano article praising Obama's alleged rise above divisive partisan politics to try to show that the Vatican approved of Obama. He did not, of course, cite the full article, nor would he name the actual source of the quote he cited. Instead, he made the blatantly dishonest claim that the source had to be either Benedict XVI or his Secretary of State, given the newspaper's official status. I knew that could not be the case, and stated as much, and pressed him for both the name of the source of the quote and the context in which it was written, at which point he did what he and his friends at Catholics United/Catholics in Alliance always do when giving a straight answer to a question would undermine their argument: he changed the subject. At the time, I was relatively ignorant of just how scandalous the actions of L'Osservatore Romano had become. Now I know, and will do my best to make sure that those who know me or read this blog know as well.
Don't let fraudulent "Catholic" groups like Catholics United/Catholics in Alliance and other Obama cheerleaders use L'Osservatore Romano as a weapon to "legitimize" Obama's fiercely anti-Catholic stances. I'll repeat the statement for the third time, as it is crucial that people understand this: not everything published in L'Osservatore Romano represents the official position of the Vatican. If you read the newspaper, trust nothing as an official position of the Vatican unless it is directly attributable to an official Vatican source, because it could well be Giovanni Maria Vian and his subordinates looking to undermine the Church's moral authority in defense of a partisan political agenda. I pray that the Vatican will soon put an end to this practice by either ridding themselves of Maria Vian's subversive influence or severing its ties with the paper altogether. Please read the linked article for more information. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Obama Appoints Hispanic Catholic Theologian Miguel Diaz as Ambassador to the Vatican, Questions of Orthodoxy Remain
Link
Speculation abounds concerning the views of Miguel Diaz on right to life issues. What we do know is that Diaz was a passionate Obama supporter during the campaign, supported partial-birth abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as HHS Secretary, and sits on the executive board of the Catholic Theological Association of America. That's three strikes against his pro-life convictions and Catholic orthodoxy right there. Diaz is fortunate that we are not talking baseball here.
It is a poorly-kept secret that the Vatican has been adamant that whatever U.S. ambassador it deals with must be in agreement with the Church on fundamental moral teachings, and there are unconfirmed reports that previous Obama nominees have been rejected by the Vatican for failing to meet that criteria. Obama strikes me as the type who would sooner force the issue than respect the Vatican's wishes on this matter.
I hope to be proven wrong about this. But given the circumstances, I will be approaching this one with more than a touch of skepticism. I pray the Vatican will stick with its guns and properly vet this nominee. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
UPDATE: It turns out that Diaz is an advocate of liberation theology and, not coincidentally, part of the speakers' bureau for the apostate leftist front group "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good." This, of course, is the sister group to the equally apostate "Catholics United" and is a group that has been directly funded by George Soros; and sure enough, Catholics United just posted an endorsement of Diaz on its blog, and expressed hope that Diaz would work with the Vatican on "many of the pressing moral concerns of our day," followed by a list of said moral concerns that of course fails to include abortion. You can officially count me as an opponent of this nomination. Cue the Obama operatives saying I'm not Hispanic enough...
Speculation abounds concerning the views of Miguel Diaz on right to life issues. What we do know is that Diaz was a passionate Obama supporter during the campaign, supported partial-birth abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as HHS Secretary, and sits on the executive board of the Catholic Theological Association of America. That's three strikes against his pro-life convictions and Catholic orthodoxy right there. Diaz is fortunate that we are not talking baseball here.
It is a poorly-kept secret that the Vatican has been adamant that whatever U.S. ambassador it deals with must be in agreement with the Church on fundamental moral teachings, and there are unconfirmed reports that previous Obama nominees have been rejected by the Vatican for failing to meet that criteria. Obama strikes me as the type who would sooner force the issue than respect the Vatican's wishes on this matter.
I hope to be proven wrong about this. But given the circumstances, I will be approaching this one with more than a touch of skepticism. I pray the Vatican will stick with its guns and properly vet this nominee. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
UPDATE: It turns out that Diaz is an advocate of liberation theology and, not coincidentally, part of the speakers' bureau for the apostate leftist front group "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good." This, of course, is the sister group to the equally apostate "Catholics United" and is a group that has been directly funded by George Soros; and sure enough, Catholics United just posted an endorsement of Diaz on its blog, and expressed hope that Diaz would work with the Vatican on "many of the pressing moral concerns of our day," followed by a list of said moral concerns that of course fails to include abortion. You can officially count me as an opponent of this nomination. Cue the Obama operatives saying I'm not Hispanic enough...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tiananmen Square 20 Years Later
A great article put out today in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the state-sanctioned massacre of an estimated 2600 students, workers, and other young adults who were part of a much larger throng of protesters demanding political reform in Communist China. To this day, the morally bankrupt Chinese government - which, in my opinion, is the greatest human rights abuser that currently plagues our planet - still claims a far smaller number of dead, and does everything in its power to erase memories of the event. The tragedy should serve as a sober reminder of what happens when socialist ideas are imposed on a free state, and why efforts to impose such ideas should be resisted at every turn.
Here is a link to an English translation of the article, originally published by Asia News.
In addition to its abhorrent "One-Child" Forced Abortion Policy, the Chinese government is also the most prolific persecutor of Christians in the world today. Its animus against the Catholic Church is such that Catholicism is illegal in China, and the government has formed its own "official" Catholic Church, which requires its members to formally renounce obedience to Magisterium and allegiance to the Vatican. Catholics who refuse membership in the "official" Church are forced underground, and Chinese Bishops elevated to the rank of Cardinal often have to be named in pectore (Latin for "in the heart"), which means that their elevation is known to the Pope alone (even the appointee is unaware of the honor) until such a time as it can be made public without being cause for political persecution of the appointee. If an in pectore elevation to the College of Cardinals is ever made public, then the appointment is retroactive so as to preserve the Cardinal's seniority. If a Pope dies before an in pectore appointment is made public, then the appointment is necessarily rendered null and void, as no living person would know the identity of the appointee.
There are a number of organizations dedicated to making known the plight of and bringing aid to persecuted Christians not only in China, but also in other parts of the world. The best known of these organizations is the Voice of the Martyrs. I strongly encourage you to visit their website and blog and, if possible, to offer prayers and whatever other support can be given for those this very worthy organization seeks to help. In the meantime, please read the above article, especially if you are too young to remember the horrible events of June 4, 1989 and the courage of the young men and women who risked the Chinese Communist Party's wrath to serve the cause of freedom. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Here is a link to an English translation of the article, originally published by Asia News.
In addition to its abhorrent "One-Child" Forced Abortion Policy, the Chinese government is also the most prolific persecutor of Christians in the world today. Its animus against the Catholic Church is such that Catholicism is illegal in China, and the government has formed its own "official" Catholic Church, which requires its members to formally renounce obedience to Magisterium and allegiance to the Vatican. Catholics who refuse membership in the "official" Church are forced underground, and Chinese Bishops elevated to the rank of Cardinal often have to be named in pectore (Latin for "in the heart"), which means that their elevation is known to the Pope alone (even the appointee is unaware of the honor) until such a time as it can be made public without being cause for political persecution of the appointee. If an in pectore elevation to the College of Cardinals is ever made public, then the appointment is retroactive so as to preserve the Cardinal's seniority. If a Pope dies before an in pectore appointment is made public, then the appointment is necessarily rendered null and void, as no living person would know the identity of the appointee.
There are a number of organizations dedicated to making known the plight of and bringing aid to persecuted Christians not only in China, but also in other parts of the world. The best known of these organizations is the Voice of the Martyrs. I strongly encourage you to visit their website and blog and, if possible, to offer prayers and whatever other support can be given for those this very worthy organization seeks to help. In the meantime, please read the above article, especially if you are too young to remember the horrible events of June 4, 1989 and the courage of the young men and women who risked the Chinese Communist Party's wrath to serve the cause of freedom. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Remember When I Said That The Thought Of Obama Naming People To The Supreme Court Made Me Cringe?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sonia Sotomayor, in a now infamous 2005 video in which she lets slip that she believes the judiciary serves to make law rather than interpret it:
As someone who is a native born Puerto Rican, let me tell you that this is not the kind of person I want representing Puerto Rican interests.
And for all the leftists who will inevitably scream "racism!" to blunt the well deserved wave of criticism soon to be directed at Sotomayor, I wish to remind of the sorry episode that was the Democrat filibuster of Miguel Estrada, during which one Democrat made the blatantly racist comment that the Honduran-born legal emigrant was, due to his conservative ideology, not Hispanic enough to warrant Hispanic support.
As a Hispanic, I also resent Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." This, too, is blatant racism. I have known many, many Latina women; and I have known many, many white males. And the truly wise ones in either category acknowledge that neither ethnicity nor personal experience have bearing on the truth or on the rule of law. Sotomayor could learn from their very meritorious example.
There is more - much more - to come out in the coming days, weeks, and months about this left-wing judicial activist. For now, I leave you with some thoughts from Michele Malkin about some of Sotomayor's more disturbing judicial decisions, and a warning to let neither the imminent media love-fest of Sonia Sotomayor nor the white washing of her judicial record blind you to the reality of this woman's extreme activism. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
As someone who is a native born Puerto Rican, let me tell you that this is not the kind of person I want representing Puerto Rican interests.
And for all the leftists who will inevitably scream "racism!" to blunt the well deserved wave of criticism soon to be directed at Sotomayor, I wish to remind of the sorry episode that was the Democrat filibuster of Miguel Estrada, during which one Democrat made the blatantly racist comment that the Honduran-born legal emigrant was, due to his conservative ideology, not Hispanic enough to warrant Hispanic support.
As a Hispanic, I also resent Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." This, too, is blatant racism. I have known many, many Latina women; and I have known many, many white males. And the truly wise ones in either category acknowledge that neither ethnicity nor personal experience have bearing on the truth or on the rule of law. Sotomayor could learn from their very meritorious example.
There is more - much more - to come out in the coming days, weeks, and months about this left-wing judicial activist. For now, I leave you with some thoughts from Michele Malkin about some of Sotomayor's more disturbing judicial decisions, and a warning to let neither the imminent media love-fest of Sonia Sotomayor nor the white washing of her judicial record blind you to the reality of this woman's extreme activism. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Friday, May 22, 2009
Dissecting The Word "Homophobia" And Its Misappropriations
Amidst all the hysterical media posturing and vulgar slander directed at Miss California Carrie Prejean for daring to espouse a position contrary to the militant "gay rights" lobby on the issue of gay marriage, and the more recent media savaging of a generalized Christian segment of society - who may or may not even be aware of the existence of the FOX show American Idol - for allegedly voting in droves for the "All-American" Kris Allen just to deny the flamboyantly effeminate Adam Lambert his "rightful victory" on the show, the word homophobia has been passed around more often recently than special brownies at a Hollywood mixer. Given the left's penchant for hijacking and misappropriating terminology to suit their own agenda, I thought I'd take a closer look at this word that is so shamelessly used to marginalize anyone that dares to engage in logical discussion about the morality of the homosexual lifestyle or about whether or not a homosexual union can ever be considered as being on a par with marriage - which is by definition the union of a man and a woman.
Now, the mere use of the word homophobia in the context that it is currently used already betrays a lack of appreciation for semantics. The prefix homo derives from the Greek word for "same." It is used in many different contexts, and is not inextricably linked with same-sex attraction as the self-absorbed "gay rights" lobby would have us believe. The suffix phobia comes from the Greek phobos, meaning "fear." So while the word homophobia is nowadays used to refer to discrimination against those who hold attraction for members of the same sex, the word literally means "fear of the same."
Now, it is a common tactic of the militant "gay rights" lobby to portray so-called "gay bashers" as being repressed homosexuals themselves, so I do not doubt that there are those who understand what the word truly means and use it as such to blunt criticism of the gay lifestyle. They go out of their way to avoid facing the possibility that there are people out there who might actually be opposed to homosexual acts based on sound moral reasoning, preferring instead to fancy that all opposition to homosexual behavior must necessarily be based on some psychological defect on the part of those who oppose such behavior.
By labeling opposition to such behavior a phobia, "gay rights" activists create the impression that it is a given that opposition to homosexual behavior is a psychological disorder. Using the word with this intent makes all the more sense given the fact that, though the word was supposedly first coined in the mid 1950's, according to the Wikipedia article on homophobia the word first began to carry the connotation of being an irrational opposition to homosexual behavior in 1972. Not coincidentally, the very next year the "gay rights" lobby successfully prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. So in the space of a single year, the secular culture went from regarding homosexuality as a psychological disorder to regarding opposition to homosexuality as a psychological disorder. So much for "gay rights" activists simply wanting to "live and let live."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we do not look to the secular world to define truth.
With "gay rights" militants putting their loathing for both the democratic process and Christianity on full display after failing to get their desired result on California's Proposition 8 vote, the disgraceful treatment to which Carrie Prejean has been subjected for giving a straightforward answer to a highly inappropriate question for a beauty pageant, and the unjustifiable denunciation of Christians on no less flimsy a pretext than that an American Idol contestant - favored by the left precisely because he is a homosexual - failed to win the competition according to the left's desires, I can't help but think that it is more appropriate to refer to the militant "gay rights" lobby as heterophobes, rather than to refer to those who are morally opposed to the homosexual lifestyle as homophobes. After all, it is the heterophobes who have shown an irrational fear of allowing those who oppose their lifestyle to make their opinions known.
Now, I know there are those out there who have homosexual tendencies who do not express vitriol every time someone expresses disapproval of their actions. There are those who can befriend others even when they are aware of another's moral objection to homosexual behavior, because they know that that disapproval is not tantamount to a rejection of them as individuals. They may not be especially happy with the other person's views, any more than the other person would be happy with theirs; but there is a mutual understanding that those contrasting views are sincerely held. What I term heterophobia does not refer to such individuals (though I do continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts, that they may turn away from such behavior). Heterophobia refers, rather, to the mindset of those who demand unconditional and uncritical approval of their behavior, especially those who try to bully or otherwise intimidate their ideological opponents into forced silence or acceptance (for instance, a protester who slaps a cross out of an elderly woman's hand and then proceeds to physically and emotionally harass her, or a vulgar "shock jock" blogger who puts a 21 year old beauty pageant finalist in the awkward position of having to answer a highly inappropriate and agenda-driven question, and then calls her a dumb b***h because he's not man enough to handle her answer); for such individuals truly do fear those who are different from themselves. In any free society, their agenda is necessarily doomed to failure. May we continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts as well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Now, the mere use of the word homophobia in the context that it is currently used already betrays a lack of appreciation for semantics. The prefix homo derives from the Greek word for "same." It is used in many different contexts, and is not inextricably linked with same-sex attraction as the self-absorbed "gay rights" lobby would have us believe. The suffix phobia comes from the Greek phobos, meaning "fear." So while the word homophobia is nowadays used to refer to discrimination against those who hold attraction for members of the same sex, the word literally means "fear of the same."
Now, it is a common tactic of the militant "gay rights" lobby to portray so-called "gay bashers" as being repressed homosexuals themselves, so I do not doubt that there are those who understand what the word truly means and use it as such to blunt criticism of the gay lifestyle. They go out of their way to avoid facing the possibility that there are people out there who might actually be opposed to homosexual acts based on sound moral reasoning, preferring instead to fancy that all opposition to homosexual behavior must necessarily be based on some psychological defect on the part of those who oppose such behavior.
By labeling opposition to such behavior a phobia, "gay rights" activists create the impression that it is a given that opposition to homosexual behavior is a psychological disorder. Using the word with this intent makes all the more sense given the fact that, though the word was supposedly first coined in the mid 1950's, according to the Wikipedia article on homophobia the word first began to carry the connotation of being an irrational opposition to homosexual behavior in 1972. Not coincidentally, the very next year the "gay rights" lobby successfully prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. So in the space of a single year, the secular culture went from regarding homosexuality as a psychological disorder to regarding opposition to homosexuality as a psychological disorder. So much for "gay rights" activists simply wanting to "live and let live."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we do not look to the secular world to define truth.
With "gay rights" militants putting their loathing for both the democratic process and Christianity on full display after failing to get their desired result on California's Proposition 8 vote, the disgraceful treatment to which Carrie Prejean has been subjected for giving a straightforward answer to a highly inappropriate question for a beauty pageant, and the unjustifiable denunciation of Christians on no less flimsy a pretext than that an American Idol contestant - favored by the left precisely because he is a homosexual - failed to win the competition according to the left's desires, I can't help but think that it is more appropriate to refer to the militant "gay rights" lobby as heterophobes, rather than to refer to those who are morally opposed to the homosexual lifestyle as homophobes. After all, it is the heterophobes who have shown an irrational fear of allowing those who oppose their lifestyle to make their opinions known.
Now, I know there are those out there who have homosexual tendencies who do not express vitriol every time someone expresses disapproval of their actions. There are those who can befriend others even when they are aware of another's moral objection to homosexual behavior, because they know that that disapproval is not tantamount to a rejection of them as individuals. They may not be especially happy with the other person's views, any more than the other person would be happy with theirs; but there is a mutual understanding that those contrasting views are sincerely held. What I term heterophobia does not refer to such individuals (though I do continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts, that they may turn away from such behavior). Heterophobia refers, rather, to the mindset of those who demand unconditional and uncritical approval of their behavior, especially those who try to bully or otherwise intimidate their ideological opponents into forced silence or acceptance (for instance, a protester who slaps a cross out of an elderly woman's hand and then proceeds to physically and emotionally harass her, or a vulgar "shock jock" blogger who puts a 21 year old beauty pageant finalist in the awkward position of having to answer a highly inappropriate and agenda-driven question, and then calls her a dumb b***h because he's not man enough to handle her answer); for such individuals truly do fear those who are different from themselves. In any free society, their agenda is necessarily doomed to failure. May we continue to pray for a conversion of their hearts as well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Seinfeldian Catholicism
A great blog post out today that logically tears apart a pro-Obama analysis of the Notre Dame commencement affair recently published by the heterodox America magazine. Hat tip once again to The Curt Jester, who seems to have a knack for finding these little nuggets.
As I read the America magazine piece protesting against the protests (linked to from the link provided below), I couldn't help but laugh. America magazine is Jesuit-run, and purports to be Catholic but has long been a refuge for heretical beliefs. Prior to reading this piece, I had written the following comment on another blog in reference to the scandal:
"Of course, those who supported Obama’s invitation and honorary degree will frame all opposition in political terms, making it seem like all opposition was the work of partisan right wing extremists. This only betrays their own biases, as their chronic inability to see anything from an apolitical perspective – even those things that are properly the domain of religion and morality – is put on full display. And like you said, these individuals really do come across as completely clueless about the nature of Catholic belief and practice. Little wonder, then, that they are unable to see this scandal from a religious and moral perspective."
I'm not one to seek affirmation for my own beliefs through the approval of others; nevertheless, it is a good feeling to be proven right by the very people against whom the comment was directed. Knowing the approach the America article is going to take, however, does not make the content any less embarrassing.
The post is courtesy of the Dyspeptic Mutterings blog. Enjoy, and God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
As I read the America magazine piece protesting against the protests (linked to from the link provided below), I couldn't help but laugh. America magazine is Jesuit-run, and purports to be Catholic but has long been a refuge for heretical beliefs. Prior to reading this piece, I had written the following comment on another blog in reference to the scandal:
"Of course, those who supported Obama’s invitation and honorary degree will frame all opposition in political terms, making it seem like all opposition was the work of partisan right wing extremists. This only betrays their own biases, as their chronic inability to see anything from an apolitical perspective – even those things that are properly the domain of religion and morality – is put on full display. And like you said, these individuals really do come across as completely clueless about the nature of Catholic belief and practice. Little wonder, then, that they are unable to see this scandal from a religious and moral perspective."
I'm not one to seek affirmation for my own beliefs through the approval of others; nevertheless, it is a good feeling to be proven right by the very people against whom the comment was directed. Knowing the approach the America article is going to take, however, does not make the content any less embarrassing.
The post is courtesy of the Dyspeptic Mutterings blog. Enjoy, and God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
EWTN: Raymond Arroyo to talk to Bishop D'Arcy about the Notre Dame/President Obama Controversy
Don’t miss Bishop John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, talking about the Notre Dame-President Obama controversy at 8 p.m. ET May 22 on “The World Over Live” with Raymond Arroyo.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Monday Project - Sending Pro-Life Cards To Notre Dame
Remember the red postcard campaign, where countless cards were sent to the White House following Obama's inauguration in memory of all the innocent lives lost to abortion? Well, here is a similar concept: The Monday Project. For every donation made to the Women's Help Center, they will send a pink or blue postcard to Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., to honor the culture of life.
With all the evil surrounding the sanctioned events of May 17, it is good to see so many pro-life individuals and organizations working to make sure that there is some good to come out of this. And there is much unintended good that has happened besides. It will be a long time before Notre Dame is taken seriously as America's premier Catholic university, and it is a well-deserved consequence. It will be a long time before the university can deceive faithful Catholics into scandal on the scale that it has just done with its recent commencement fiasco. The less potential for scandal that exists in a largely secularized university, the better.
To restore its reputation, Notre Dame will have to work seriously towards restoring its Catholic identity in fact as well as in name. This means that token gestures will not suffice. It is an important first step, for instance, that Fr. Jenkins be removed from his post as university President, but replacing him with someone of the caliber of Fr. Jenkins' two unworthy predecessors, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh (the architect of the Land 'O Lakes fiasco) and Fr. Edward Malloy (who did absolutely nothing to curb the growing wave of apostasy at the university), will accomplish absolutely nothing. The man who replaces Fr. Jenkins (preferably sooner than later) will be the most heavily scrutinized university President appointment in American history. The reaction of the media will be telling. If the new selection is as bad, worse, or even just nominally better than Fr. Jenkins in terms of orthodoxy, then the media is sure to gush over his selection just like they do over Obama's every word and action. But if the new selection even hints at being someone of proven orthodox Catholic conviction and takes a no-nonsense approach to restoring the university's identity, then that person will become the media's new whipping boy. Of course, merely hinting at such convictions does not warrant a free pass. Fr. Jenkins hinted at such convictions when he took over for Fr. Malloy, and we are all now painfully aware of the disaster that has ensued.
The new President's every action will be dissected. Such is the cross that the new person shall bear. We therefore need someone of strong moral fiber and courage who can withstand both the scrutiny and the pressure to conform to the secular status quo. But I know this much: devout American Catholics grow tired of bishops, pastors, and administrators of Catholic institutions who take a wait and see attitude when they inherit a theological and spiritual mess, because such an approach rarely leads to action. If the next President thus begs off on moving the university in a more orthodox direction while he "gets a feel for the situation," then the University of Notre Dame will have that much longer to wait before its severely damaged reputation can begin to be repaired. I pray once again that those who love both the university and the Catholic Church (for what the Church truly is, and not for what the adjective "Catholic" can let them accomplish) will soon see a reconciliation between those things which they love.
In the meantime, the university needs to be constantly reminded of the Church's mission, a very important part of which is combating the culture of death that is now being led by one Barack Hussein Obama. The Monday Project is one of the ways to go about doing this. Please give them a look, and if possible make a contribution. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
With all the evil surrounding the sanctioned events of May 17, it is good to see so many pro-life individuals and organizations working to make sure that there is some good to come out of this. And there is much unintended good that has happened besides. It will be a long time before Notre Dame is taken seriously as America's premier Catholic university, and it is a well-deserved consequence. It will be a long time before the university can deceive faithful Catholics into scandal on the scale that it has just done with its recent commencement fiasco. The less potential for scandal that exists in a largely secularized university, the better.
To restore its reputation, Notre Dame will have to work seriously towards restoring its Catholic identity in fact as well as in name. This means that token gestures will not suffice. It is an important first step, for instance, that Fr. Jenkins be removed from his post as university President, but replacing him with someone of the caliber of Fr. Jenkins' two unworthy predecessors, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh (the architect of the Land 'O Lakes fiasco) and Fr. Edward Malloy (who did absolutely nothing to curb the growing wave of apostasy at the university), will accomplish absolutely nothing. The man who replaces Fr. Jenkins (preferably sooner than later) will be the most heavily scrutinized university President appointment in American history. The reaction of the media will be telling. If the new selection is as bad, worse, or even just nominally better than Fr. Jenkins in terms of orthodoxy, then the media is sure to gush over his selection just like they do over Obama's every word and action. But if the new selection even hints at being someone of proven orthodox Catholic conviction and takes a no-nonsense approach to restoring the university's identity, then that person will become the media's new whipping boy. Of course, merely hinting at such convictions does not warrant a free pass. Fr. Jenkins hinted at such convictions when he took over for Fr. Malloy, and we are all now painfully aware of the disaster that has ensued.
The new President's every action will be dissected. Such is the cross that the new person shall bear. We therefore need someone of strong moral fiber and courage who can withstand both the scrutiny and the pressure to conform to the secular status quo. But I know this much: devout American Catholics grow tired of bishops, pastors, and administrators of Catholic institutions who take a wait and see attitude when they inherit a theological and spiritual mess, because such an approach rarely leads to action. If the next President thus begs off on moving the university in a more orthodox direction while he "gets a feel for the situation," then the University of Notre Dame will have that much longer to wait before its severely damaged reputation can begin to be repaired. I pray once again that those who love both the university and the Catholic Church (for what the Church truly is, and not for what the adjective "Catholic" can let them accomplish) will soon see a reconciliation between those things which they love.
In the meantime, the university needs to be constantly reminded of the Church's mission, a very important part of which is combating the culture of death that is now being led by one Barack Hussein Obama. The Monday Project is one of the ways to go about doing this. Please give them a look, and if possible make a contribution. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Archbishop Chaput Speaks About The Notre Dame Scandal
Reprinted here in its entirety, as it is a very worthwhile read. For once, I feel no need to add anything, except to say God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
"Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.
Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.
We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also 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: Roe v. Wade.
In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.
There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.
These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.
The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.
Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. 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. The 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. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good."
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
"Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.
Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.
We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also 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: Roe v. Wade.
In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.
There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.
These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.
The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.
Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. 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. The 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. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Some Thoughts About Yesterday's Shameful Turn Of Events At Notre Dame
- Norma McCorvey was arrested yesterday during a peaceful on campus protest. Once again, Notre Dame's administration proves where its true loyalties lay by lionizing a champion of Roe v. Wade while sweeping Roe - who outlived her usefulness the moment she committed the unspeakable crime of becoming a pro-life Catholic - under the carpet.
- Fr. Jenkins' gushing introduction of Obama was deplorable. I wonder if he has ever spoken in such awestruck terms about Jesus Christ Himself.
- Fr. Jenkins has repeatedly and dishonestly tried to frame this whole debacle as a "dialogue," even though he has arranged for Obama to address a captive audience with no chance for a Q&A afterward and has been called on his duplicity repeatedly, by Bishop D'Arcy and many others.
- The "reaching out to those who disagree" argument might also have held more water if he hadn't sanctioned the arrest - along with McCorvey - of a Catholic priest praying for Our Lady's intercession on behalf of the cause of life on Notre Dame's campus in protest of Fr. Jenkins' decision to honor Obama. So much for tolerating opposing points of view....
- Obama said on abortion, "Let's draft a sensible conscience clause." You mean like this one?
- Obama said, "Be unafraid to speak your mind." Just a reminder of how the Obama administration views ideological opponents (be sure to check the link within the link).
- Obama praises the 1967 Land O' Lakes Statement, which - as has been previously mentioned on this blog - was a major staging point for the secularization of many Catholic colleges and universities and the popularization of the misrepresentation of the Catholic faith in the university classroom. Truly a man with a heart for the Church.
- Obama shamelessly uses the moral equivalency approach in dealing with abortion and stem cell research. He says the decision over whether or not to have an abortion is somehow on a par morally with the action itself. One is the decision over whether or not to take a human life. The other is the actual taking of the human life. But that little distinction is of little concern to The Great Equivocator. And on stem cell research, he tries to pass off the desire to kill human embryos for the sake of unproven research that has yet to have any proven life-saving results as just as principled as opposition to killing said embryos. What is obvious is that Obama doesn't recognize the humanity of the conceived, unborn child, and cares little for the fact that others do. He is essentially saying, "Come on, so much good can come out of killing innocent life. The sooner you right wing extremists recognize the wisdom of my stance, the sooner we can find common ground on this issue and move on to more important (read: less politically radioactive) issues."
- From the start of Fr. Jenkins' introduction to the end of Obama's speech, the core message was the greatness of Barack Obama. Leave it to The One to take an event that is supposed to be about God and the graduating seniors and make it about himself. But given his track record, who really expected any less?
The event proved to be every bit as shamefully self-indulgent as many of us expected it would be. Obama got what he wanted all along: an honorary degree from an allegedly Catholic institution. Expect him to use it early and often to blunt any and all criticism of his anti-Catholic stances.
All that's left now is to see what becomes of Fr. Jenkins. I don't expect any action from the head of the Holy Cross Fathers or the Notre Dame Board of Trustees. For years, they have refused to perform their respective moral obligations with respect to safeguarding Notre Dame's Catholic identity, and there is no reason to expect them to do the right thing now. It falls to Bishop John D'Arcy to put an end to this mess by revoking Notre Dame's Catholic charter until the university can prove that it is once again committed to living out its calling as a Catholic university, with the necessary first step - and I must emphasize that this is only one step in what is bound to be a long and painful process - being the ouster of Fr. Jenkins. If Bishop D'Arcy will not perform his episcopal duty, then I pray that the Vatican will step in and take appropriate action.
Our Lady weeps at the apostasy of a school that was named in her honor. I can only pray that the school will soon return a blessed smile to her beautiful face. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
- Fr. Jenkins' gushing introduction of Obama was deplorable. I wonder if he has ever spoken in such awestruck terms about Jesus Christ Himself.
- Fr. Jenkins has repeatedly and dishonestly tried to frame this whole debacle as a "dialogue," even though he has arranged for Obama to address a captive audience with no chance for a Q&A afterward and has been called on his duplicity repeatedly, by Bishop D'Arcy and many others.
- The "reaching out to those who disagree" argument might also have held more water if he hadn't sanctioned the arrest - along with McCorvey - of a Catholic priest praying for Our Lady's intercession on behalf of the cause of life on Notre Dame's campus in protest of Fr. Jenkins' decision to honor Obama. So much for tolerating opposing points of view....
- Obama said on abortion, "Let's draft a sensible conscience clause." You mean like this one?
- Obama said, "Be unafraid to speak your mind." Just a reminder of how the Obama administration views ideological opponents (be sure to check the link within the link).
- Obama praises the 1967 Land O' Lakes Statement, which - as has been previously mentioned on this blog - was a major staging point for the secularization of many Catholic colleges and universities and the popularization of the misrepresentation of the Catholic faith in the university classroom. Truly a man with a heart for the Church.
- Obama shamelessly uses the moral equivalency approach in dealing with abortion and stem cell research. He says the decision over whether or not to have an abortion is somehow on a par morally with the action itself. One is the decision over whether or not to take a human life. The other is the actual taking of the human life. But that little distinction is of little concern to The Great Equivocator. And on stem cell research, he tries to pass off the desire to kill human embryos for the sake of unproven research that has yet to have any proven life-saving results as just as principled as opposition to killing said embryos. What is obvious is that Obama doesn't recognize the humanity of the conceived, unborn child, and cares little for the fact that others do. He is essentially saying, "Come on, so much good can come out of killing innocent life. The sooner you right wing extremists recognize the wisdom of my stance, the sooner we can find common ground on this issue and move on to more important (read: less politically radioactive) issues."
- From the start of Fr. Jenkins' introduction to the end of Obama's speech, the core message was the greatness of Barack Obama. Leave it to The One to take an event that is supposed to be about God and the graduating seniors and make it about himself. But given his track record, who really expected any less?
The event proved to be every bit as shamefully self-indulgent as many of us expected it would be. Obama got what he wanted all along: an honorary degree from an allegedly Catholic institution. Expect him to use it early and often to blunt any and all criticism of his anti-Catholic stances.
All that's left now is to see what becomes of Fr. Jenkins. I don't expect any action from the head of the Holy Cross Fathers or the Notre Dame Board of Trustees. For years, they have refused to perform their respective moral obligations with respect to safeguarding Notre Dame's Catholic identity, and there is no reason to expect them to do the right thing now. It falls to Bishop John D'Arcy to put an end to this mess by revoking Notre Dame's Catholic charter until the university can prove that it is once again committed to living out its calling as a Catholic university, with the necessary first step - and I must emphasize that this is only one step in what is bound to be a long and painful process - being the ouster of Fr. Jenkins. If Bishop D'Arcy will not perform his episcopal duty, then I pray that the Vatican will step in and take appropriate action.
Our Lady weeps at the apostasy of a school that was named in her honor. I can only pray that the school will soon return a blessed smile to her beautiful face. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
The Question Fr. Jenkins Wishes Would Just Go Away...
Something tells me Fr. Jenkins does not want his real stances on right to life issues to become public knowledge. At the very least, he has proven that he places those issues behind the typical lefty "social justice" agenda, part of which is obviously casting rolled eyes in frustration at the nagging reality of the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. If only they could make that issue go away...
The culture of death is alive and well at the University of Notre Dame. It is led by Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Several Protesters, Including Alan Keyes And A Catholic Priest, Arrested At Notre Dame
Link
Mind you, there were no bloody dolls or any other controversial displays this time around. This was a peaceful, prayerful demonstration. A prayer for the intercession of Our Lady, who must be weeping at the thought that she is both the namesake of this university and the Patroness of the Unborn, and that these two facts are now in direct conflict with one another.
And seriously, for those of you who are unconditional Obama supporters: quit trying to feed us this BS line about Obama trying to reduce the number of abortions. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that legalizing rape while at the same time increasing comprehensive sex education (contraception-based, of course, since this administration seems to regard abstinence as a disease to be avoided at all costs) will decrease the number of rapes in this country. The man supports unrestricted abortion on demand, to the point that he refuses to recognize the humanity of babies who have the poor grace to survive the abortions for which they were targeted; and he supports encouraging the very type of behavior that leads to the "unwanted pregnancies" that Planned Parenthood is only to happy to "fix"...for a price.
But back to the situation at hand. When a university that claims to be Catholic and is named after Our Lady - the Patroness of the Unborn - sanctions the arrest of a priest who is peacefully praying for Our Lady's intercession in aiding the unborn, yet sees nothing wrong with honoring a man who stands against everything Our Lady advocates (and is aggressively trying to establish his opposite stance as the law of the land), that university is engaging in demonic behavior. And the man who is advocating and enabling this behavior, Fr. John I. Jenkins, is no friend of the Catholic Church, the unborn, or the cause of truth. That he doggedly insists on honoring Barack Obama with an honorary law degree when even a secular university (Arizona State) hosting him as commencement speaker denies him a degree (on the grounds that he has not accomplished enough in his life to warrant such an honor) shows that Fr. Jenkins is honoring Barack Obama for no other reason than that he supports what Obama represents.
So long as Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., remains President of the University of Notre Dame, that institution does not deserve to be called a Catholic university, much less the honor of being regarded as "Our Lady's University."
Our Lady, Patroness of the Unborn, whose intercession has wrought miracles beyond count, pray for the persecuted helpless innocents whose only crime was being conceived. Pray also for those who do the persecuting, and that men like Barack Obama and Fr. John Jenkins turn away from their support of the culture of death and use their position to help the cause of life. And please pray that the devoutly Catholic students and alumni of Notre Dame who love their alma mater may soon see the Catholic character of their beloved university restored. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Mind you, there were no bloody dolls or any other controversial displays this time around. This was a peaceful, prayerful demonstration. A prayer for the intercession of Our Lady, who must be weeping at the thought that she is both the namesake of this university and the Patroness of the Unborn, and that these two facts are now in direct conflict with one another.
And seriously, for those of you who are unconditional Obama supporters: quit trying to feed us this BS line about Obama trying to reduce the number of abortions. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that legalizing rape while at the same time increasing comprehensive sex education (contraception-based, of course, since this administration seems to regard abstinence as a disease to be avoided at all costs) will decrease the number of rapes in this country. The man supports unrestricted abortion on demand, to the point that he refuses to recognize the humanity of babies who have the poor grace to survive the abortions for which they were targeted; and he supports encouraging the very type of behavior that leads to the "unwanted pregnancies" that Planned Parenthood is only to happy to "fix"...for a price.
But back to the situation at hand. When a university that claims to be Catholic and is named after Our Lady - the Patroness of the Unborn - sanctions the arrest of a priest who is peacefully praying for Our Lady's intercession in aiding the unborn, yet sees nothing wrong with honoring a man who stands against everything Our Lady advocates (and is aggressively trying to establish his opposite stance as the law of the land), that university is engaging in demonic behavior. And the man who is advocating and enabling this behavior, Fr. John I. Jenkins, is no friend of the Catholic Church, the unborn, or the cause of truth. That he doggedly insists on honoring Barack Obama with an honorary law degree when even a secular university (Arizona State) hosting him as commencement speaker denies him a degree (on the grounds that he has not accomplished enough in his life to warrant such an honor) shows that Fr. Jenkins is honoring Barack Obama for no other reason than that he supports what Obama represents.
So long as Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., remains President of the University of Notre Dame, that institution does not deserve to be called a Catholic university, much less the honor of being regarded as "Our Lady's University."
Our Lady, Patroness of the Unborn, whose intercession has wrought miracles beyond count, pray for the persecuted helpless innocents whose only crime was being conceived. Pray also for those who do the persecuting, and that men like Barack Obama and Fr. John Jenkins turn away from their support of the culture of death and use their position to help the cause of life. And please pray that the devoutly Catholic students and alumni of Notre Dame who love their alma mater may soon see the Catholic character of their beloved university restored. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Friday, May 8, 2009
Barack Obama Furthers The Cause Of Sexual Dysfunctionality, Cuts All Funding For Abstinence-Only Education
Link
He is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion (to the point of trying to deny the first amendment rights of religious conscientious objectors), embryonic stem cell research, legislation to reduce so-called "man-made global warming" (which would inevitably include forced abortions and other population control measures as part of reducing man's "carbon footprint"), the United Nations Population Fund (which already does support forced abortions and other population control measures), and now this. Our President's passion for obliterating the moral fiber of this country borders on the lustful.
If he is left unchecked, it will only be a matter of time before he and his minions try to eliminate privately-funded abstinence-only education as well.
Of course, that's a redundant statement, since if left unchecked, Obama will try to eliminate private funding altogether. It's what Marxists do.
I often catch a lot of heat for my criticisms of the Obama agenda. To which I reply that a demonic agenda by any other name is still a demonic agenda. Shiny packaging serves only to mask Pandora's box. It does not diminish the cancer contained therein.
The 2010 election cycle will be getting underway in the months to come. I will tell you now that the primary elections will matter every bit as much as the general elections, because we need viable pro-life, pro-family, pro-smaller government candidates to be on as many November ballots as possible. So start looking for and supporting such candidates as early as possible, so they can have momentum heading into the primary season. The more Obama's pro-culture of death agenda can be curtailed for the duration of his (hopefully one term) presidency, the better it will be for men and women of goodwill in the years to come. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
He is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion (to the point of trying to deny the first amendment rights of religious conscientious objectors), embryonic stem cell research, legislation to reduce so-called "man-made global warming" (which would inevitably include forced abortions and other population control measures as part of reducing man's "carbon footprint"), the United Nations Population Fund (which already does support forced abortions and other population control measures), and now this. Our President's passion for obliterating the moral fiber of this country borders on the lustful.
If he is left unchecked, it will only be a matter of time before he and his minions try to eliminate privately-funded abstinence-only education as well.
Of course, that's a redundant statement, since if left unchecked, Obama will try to eliminate private funding altogether. It's what Marxists do.
I often catch a lot of heat for my criticisms of the Obama agenda. To which I reply that a demonic agenda by any other name is still a demonic agenda. Shiny packaging serves only to mask Pandora's box. It does not diminish the cancer contained therein.
The 2010 election cycle will be getting underway in the months to come. I will tell you now that the primary elections will matter every bit as much as the general elections, because we need viable pro-life, pro-family, pro-smaller government candidates to be on as many November ballots as possible. So start looking for and supporting such candidates as early as possible, so they can have momentum heading into the primary season. The more Obama's pro-culture of death agenda can be curtailed for the duration of his (hopefully one term) presidency, the better it will be for men and women of goodwill in the years to come. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Fr. John Corapi Issues Statement Regarding Notre Dame Commencement Scandal
Always trust this man to speak the truth without pulling any punches. It's really good to have you back, Father. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
"It is my privilege to be able to deliver the following message on behalf of the Cardinal Newman Society:
As you know, the University of Notre Dame—an old and honored Catholic institution of higher learning in the United States—recently dishonored itself, and to some extent the entire Catholic world, by inviting President Barack Obama to receive an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and to deliver the commencement address on May 17th.
Mr. Obama will be the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by the University and the sixth to be the Commencement speaker. He is the first to be so honored, however, that has such an obviously public and pernicious anti-life, and anti-Catholic/Christian bias.
The Catholic Church has taught and does teach that every human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (CCC 2270).
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law (CCC 2271). On more than one occasion Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta called it “murder.”
No president in history has been so damaging to the cause of respect for life than this one, and he’s only just begun. His constant and unwavering support for the right to choose the homicide of abortion is a matter of record—and not only abortion, but partial-birth abortion, infanticide, fetal stem cell research, and even removing the right of medical professionals to act in accordance with their conscience marks him as a singular enemy of essential elements of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching.
This man the University of Notre Dame invites to receive an honorary doctorate degree and deliver the commencement address? Whether intended or not, this sends a terrible message to the Catholic world and to the world at large. A picture is worth a thousand words. Which thousand words will be articulated to an already morally relativistic culture by the picture of Mr. Obama receiving such honors from a Catholic University? Metaphorically and morally it’s like shooting yourself in the foot. So Notre Dame limps on.
Many of you did what you could to prevent this travesty from actually happening, and at this moment barring a bolt of lightning or divine intervention, it looks like it will happen. We want to sincerely thank the more than 350,000 people that signed the petition of protest against Notre Dame’s obvious lack of good judgment in making a singularly public statement that not only dilutes the University’s Catholic credibility and identity, but undermines the authentically Catholic identity and credibility of the Church in this country.
Almost 70 bishops have likewise voiced their disapproval in no uncertain terms, thereby demonstrating their courage and strong pastoral leadership. We are very thankful to them as well.
This strong and courageous witness is truly a sign of hope. It needs to grow. Authentic Catholic identity has to be restored in our Catholic Universities and other institutions of learning. If it is restored, our nation will be restored. If it is not restored we shall have much to answer for in the moral unraveling of a great nation, and ultimately the loss of souls.
The Catholic Church and its educational institutions must return to a position of strong and uncompromising moral leadership, integrity, and credibility. If we stand for nothing we begin to fall for everything. If, indeed, we “choose prestige over principles and popularity over morality” then we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Pray for the University of Notre Dame, its president, its board of directors, and students. And pray for our bishops, for in the end the burden will rest on their shoulders to decide whether the University of Notre Dame, and others like it, are Catholic or not.
The battle is not over, my friends, it’s just now begun in earnest. So, fight the good fight, and run the race to the finish line, for in the end we have the certain knowledge that truth will triumph over lies, light over darkness, and good over evil.
God love you. God bless you. Good bye.
Fr. John Corapi"
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
"It is my privilege to be able to deliver the following message on behalf of the Cardinal Newman Society:
As you know, the University of Notre Dame—an old and honored Catholic institution of higher learning in the United States—recently dishonored itself, and to some extent the entire Catholic world, by inviting President Barack Obama to receive an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and to deliver the commencement address on May 17th.
Mr. Obama will be the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by the University and the sixth to be the Commencement speaker. He is the first to be so honored, however, that has such an obviously public and pernicious anti-life, and anti-Catholic/Christian bias.
The Catholic Church has taught and does teach that every human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (CCC 2270).
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law (CCC 2271). On more than one occasion Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta called it “murder.”
No president in history has been so damaging to the cause of respect for life than this one, and he’s only just begun. His constant and unwavering support for the right to choose the homicide of abortion is a matter of record—and not only abortion, but partial-birth abortion, infanticide, fetal stem cell research, and even removing the right of medical professionals to act in accordance with their conscience marks him as a singular enemy of essential elements of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching.
This man the University of Notre Dame invites to receive an honorary doctorate degree and deliver the commencement address? Whether intended or not, this sends a terrible message to the Catholic world and to the world at large. A picture is worth a thousand words. Which thousand words will be articulated to an already morally relativistic culture by the picture of Mr. Obama receiving such honors from a Catholic University? Metaphorically and morally it’s like shooting yourself in the foot. So Notre Dame limps on.
Many of you did what you could to prevent this travesty from actually happening, and at this moment barring a bolt of lightning or divine intervention, it looks like it will happen. We want to sincerely thank the more than 350,000 people that signed the petition of protest against Notre Dame’s obvious lack of good judgment in making a singularly public statement that not only dilutes the University’s Catholic credibility and identity, but undermines the authentically Catholic identity and credibility of the Church in this country.
Almost 70 bishops have likewise voiced their disapproval in no uncertain terms, thereby demonstrating their courage and strong pastoral leadership. We are very thankful to them as well.
This strong and courageous witness is truly a sign of hope. It needs to grow. Authentic Catholic identity has to be restored in our Catholic Universities and other institutions of learning. If it is restored, our nation will be restored. If it is not restored we shall have much to answer for in the moral unraveling of a great nation, and ultimately the loss of souls.
The Catholic Church and its educational institutions must return to a position of strong and uncompromising moral leadership, integrity, and credibility. If we stand for nothing we begin to fall for everything. If, indeed, we “choose prestige over principles and popularity over morality” then we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Pray for the University of Notre Dame, its president, its board of directors, and students. And pray for our bishops, for in the end the burden will rest on their shoulders to decide whether the University of Notre Dame, and others like it, are Catholic or not.
The battle is not over, my friends, it’s just now begun in earnest. So, fight the good fight, and run the race to the finish line, for in the end we have the certain knowledge that truth will triumph over lies, light over darkness, and good over evil.
God love you. God bless you. Good bye.
Fr. John Corapi"
Thursday, May 7, 2009
New Probe Shows Obama's Funding UNFPA Supports Kidnapping Babies, Abortion
Link
But hey, taxing us back into the Stone Age is supposed to be for the greater good, right?
Let's see how the Obama apologists try to spin this one...
But hey, taxing us back into the Stone Age is supposed to be for the greater good, right?
Let's see how the Obama apologists try to spin this one...
Well-Known Catholic Artist To Discuss A Return To Beauty On "EWTN Live"
From Gus Federle of EWTN:
"David Clayton, artist-in-residence at Thomas More College in Merrimack, N.H., will speak with Father Mitch Pacwa about “Art and Catholicism” at 8 p.m. ET, Wednesday, May 13. on “EWTN Live.” Clayton, a convert and an iconographer who formerly taught “Art, Inspiration and Beauty from a Catholic Perspective” at the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham, England, will discuss why we need a return to beauty in everything from art to architecture."
"David Clayton, artist-in-residence at Thomas More College in Merrimack, N.H., will speak with Father Mitch Pacwa about “Art and Catholicism” at 8 p.m. ET, Wednesday, May 13. on “EWTN Live.” Clayton, a convert and an iconographer who formerly taught “Art, Inspiration and Beauty from a Catholic Perspective” at the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham, England, will discuss why we need a return to beauty in everything from art to architecture."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Paul Harvey On Gun Control
This is a follow-up to a post on gun control I wrote last summer. Below is a piece written by the late Paul Harvey in 2000 concerning a history of gun control worldwide in the 20th century. There is a disturbing correlation between socialism, despotism, gun control, and massive human rights violations. Given the Obama administration's overtly socialist agenda - coupled with Obama's aggressively pro-gun control stance - opponents of gun control legislation should be subject to involuntary shudders every time the words "gun control" and "Barack Obama" are mentioned in the same sentence. Such shudders become all the more justifiable given Obama's remarks about bitter small town Americans clinging to their guns and their religion and two recent Department of Homeland Security documents (stories here and here) identifying such individuals and other "right wing extremists" as potential terrorists. Even those not generally given over to paranoia are forced to look at these facts and wonder what, exactly, the Obama administration is planning.
Have I mentioned yet how comforted I feel that gun sales to law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008?
Paul Harvey's article follows below. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Link
Paul Harvey on Guns
Monday, November 06, 2000
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?
CONSIDER:
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”
It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it’s too late, write or call your representatives.
Have I mentioned yet how comforted I feel that gun sales to law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008?
Paul Harvey's article follows below. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Link
Paul Harvey on Guns
Monday, November 06, 2000
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?
CONSIDER:
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”
It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it’s too late, write or call your representatives.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Mr. Terry, There Is A Right Way To Go About Engaging In Pro-Life Activism...
...and then there is your way. (source: WSBT.com)
The sad thing is, when I first learned that someone had been arrested at the Notre Dame campus in relation to the Obama scandal, I immediately knew who it was.
Given the propaganda war waged by pro-abortionists to mask the reality of abortion and the relatively short attention span of the general public, I believe in the occasional stark reminder of what abortion does to the unborn. However, such displays should always be accompanied by a corresponding message and should be infrequent enough as to not desensitize the target audience. When such displays becomes the norm rather than the exception, it is a sign that a penchant for sensationalism has taken precedence over promoting a culture of life in the one that engages in the displaying.
Additionally, getting arrested on a regular basis just to get your name in the news - which appears to be Randall Terry's favorite past-time - tends to have the effect of drawing attention to the crusader rather than to the crusade. I can no longer tell whether or not that is Mr. Terry's intention.
As a final point, while I adamantly believe that the conduct of Fr. Jenkins and the Notre Dame administration during this entire Obama affair has been a source of deep shame for the entire Catholic Church, the university does have the right to instruct individuals not to set foot on university premises, especially when such individuals have a track record as notorious as Randall Terry's. (source: JillStanek.com)
Randall Terry's goal of ending legalized abortion is a noble one, and one shared by all self-respecting pro-lifers. And if ever anyone had a valid reason for having a personal vendetta against the pro-abortion movement, it is Terry. This 2006 National Catholic Register article, on the occasion of Terry's conversion to Catholicism, details his past pro-life work, and how attorneys for NOW, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood set about to ruin him financially out of sheer spite. I cannot say what scars past brushes with the culture of death have left on Randall Terry's heart. They do not, however, justify his oftentimes disrespectful and theatrical antics; and I can only pray that he eventually comes to the realization that the ends do not necessarily justify the means.
The sad thing is, when I first learned that someone had been arrested at the Notre Dame campus in relation to the Obama scandal, I immediately knew who it was.
Given the propaganda war waged by pro-abortionists to mask the reality of abortion and the relatively short attention span of the general public, I believe in the occasional stark reminder of what abortion does to the unborn. However, such displays should always be accompanied by a corresponding message and should be infrequent enough as to not desensitize the target audience. When such displays becomes the norm rather than the exception, it is a sign that a penchant for sensationalism has taken precedence over promoting a culture of life in the one that engages in the displaying.
Additionally, getting arrested on a regular basis just to get your name in the news - which appears to be Randall Terry's favorite past-time - tends to have the effect of drawing attention to the crusader rather than to the crusade. I can no longer tell whether or not that is Mr. Terry's intention.
As a final point, while I adamantly believe that the conduct of Fr. Jenkins and the Notre Dame administration during this entire Obama affair has been a source of deep shame for the entire Catholic Church, the university does have the right to instruct individuals not to set foot on university premises, especially when such individuals have a track record as notorious as Randall Terry's. (source: JillStanek.com)
Randall Terry's goal of ending legalized abortion is a noble one, and one shared by all self-respecting pro-lifers. And if ever anyone had a valid reason for having a personal vendetta against the pro-abortion movement, it is Terry. This 2006 National Catholic Register article, on the occasion of Terry's conversion to Catholicism, details his past pro-life work, and how attorneys for NOW, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood set about to ruin him financially out of sheer spite. I cannot say what scars past brushes with the culture of death have left on Randall Terry's heart. They do not, however, justify his oftentimes disrespectful and theatrical antics; and I can only pray that he eventually comes to the realization that the ends do not necessarily justify the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
