Assenting Catholic

If Bureaucrats Ruled (More Of) The World (Than They Already Do)...

2011-10-26T15:13:00.000-07:00

‎"10/26/2011, 9:22 AM, Washington, DC - After a nearly 10 hour standoff that resulted in the deaths of 8 police officers and 279 civilians, law enforcement agents finally succeeded in subduing an unarmed elderly man who had attempted to illegally install a light bulb without government approval. According to police records, John Doe, aged 75, had grown increasingly more frustrated with government bureaucrats who were still processing his request - made in 1962, when he was 26 years old - to replace a broken light bulb in the front porch of his home.

As the bruised and beaten Doe was being led away in handcuffs, he allegedly screamed out, 'Who takes 49 freaking years to replace a stupid light bulb?!'

According to eyewitnesses, the standoff began just after 10 P.M. last night, when an enraged Doe - who had been on hold with the Federal Department of Light Bulbs for nearly 8 hours - took the unprecedented step of removing the nearly 50 year old burned out light bulb from its fixture.

One concerned neighbor, who asked not to be identified, happened to witness Mr. Doe's unseemly action while passing by her living room window, and immediately called 911.

'Half a dozen patrol cars were on the scene in less than 15 seconds,' the amazed neighbor said. 'Heck, it took them 15 minutes to respond to a murder in progress last week.'

A number of police officers, pistols at the ready, immediately tried to talk the elderly man down from his mini-ladder. Instead, Mr. Doe flashed them a grin and said, 'Did you know that my call was very important to them?'

'He had crazy eyes,' convicted felon (and now police Lt.) Buster Faisup recalled. 'But here he was defying the federal government. We just couldn't let that pass. So the moment he started trying to replace that light bulb again, we had no choice. We brought out the heavy artillery.'

Indeed they did. For the next 10 hours, the police and arriving SWAT, FBI, and Army divisions began pouring murderous and unrelenting gun, rifle, machine gun, and tank fire on the defenseless Doe, who was less than 20 feet away.

Unfortunately, these crack shots - themselves trained by government bureaucrats as a 'cost cutting measure' in the federal defense budget - were not always accurate. The end result was the destruction of more than 100 homes, irreparable damage to the Washington Monument (located some 10 miles away), and 279 dead, 863 wounded, and 6,790 other civilians unaccounted for beneath the resulting rubble. Additionally, 8 police officers lost their lives when an order to remove the pins from their hand grenades was issued, but the follow up order to lob the grenades at Mr. Doe's house was not.

'We have no idea how that happened,' Undersecretary of Light Bulbs Dearing Hedlites said. Undersecretary Hedlites - who was responsible for issuing all orders to law enforcement personnel throughout the course of the standoff - assured us that he would form an investigative committee to find the person responsible just as soon as he could secure an executive order to authorize it.

Despite some setbacks, the 10 hours of bombardment seemed to have some effect. The Doe residence suffered minor damage to the roof, and Mr. Doe himself suffered minor injuries - the result of falling from his ladder due to excessive gun smoke inhalation - which provided SWAT personnel with the opening they needed to go in and subdue him with a barrage of blows from half a dozen nightsticks. This happened less than an hour after the bombardment began. With Mr. Doe securely in custody, the bombardment was finally called off some 9 hours later.

Afterward, we caught up with a grinning Mr. Hedlites. 'Wow, 9 hours,' he said. 'I can't recall us ever pulling the plug on an operation that quickly.'

When asked about the massive collateral damage, he said, 'It's a small price to pay to ensure the rule of law in our society.'"

New Bishop of St. Augustine to be Named Tomorrow

2011-04-26T19:49:00.000-07:00

In accordance with canon law, St. Augustine Bishop Victor B. Galeone submitted his letter of resignation upon turning 75 years old in September of last year. The resignation was accepted, and it has only remained for the Holy Father to name a replacement.

Apparently, that wait is over. According to this Florida Times-Union article, the announcement is set for 10:30 tomorrow morning at the diocesan center.

My desire, and my prayer, is a simple one: I want a man who is faithful to the teachings of the Church and who has the moral courage to run those who are not out of positions of influence, because the moral confusion that has resulted from allowing such individuals to remain in place has done incalculable spiritual damage to the faithful.

If, however, the Holy Father chooses to name someone who will have the National Catholic Distorter screaming bloody Armageddon at the top of its lungs before his installation, and have them reconsidering their stance on capital punishment after, I can't say that I'd object ;)

Please storm Heaven with your prayers, asking for an inspired choice in our new shepherd. We remain ever in need of such a shepherd. More to come as this story unfolds. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Thought for the Day

2011-03-03T12:02:00.001-08:00

To say, "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're a good person" is akin to saying, "There's only one rule: no cheating."

Coming up on 38 years and counting...

2011-01-16T16:01:00.000-08:00

...since unborn children were declared to be the disposable property of their mothers by 7 unelected and unaccountable jurists; and what should have been lamented as a step backward in our nation's moral development following the abolition of slavery was instead lauded as a civil rights victory by a bunch of misogynists who cynically labeled themselves women's rights advocates.

Only in the minds of the most selfish of people can the existence of an unborn child be justifiably described as a threat to the civil liberties of the expectant mother. To everyone else, such a child would be called a blessing.

Continue to pray for the conversion of heart of our elected officials, that this dreadful slaughter of the innocents will some day soon be brought to a merciful conclusion. And failing that, pray for the conversion of the voters who have repeatedly elected those with hardened hearts to office, that they may soon cast their votes for those who recognize that our best interests will never be fulfilled by the attempted destruction of our own posterity.

Election Day, 2010: the Anti-Socialist Revolution

2010-11-02T15:11:00.000-07:00

As I write this, we are an hour and a half away from the closing of the first polls of the 2010 election cycle. By all accounts, this election is set to become a major referendum against the Obama administration's aggressive attempts to push America in a socialist direction. While it is largely a rebellion against the administration's fiscal policies, it should not be overlooked that this election should go a long way towards reigning in the administration's equally aggressive attempts to push America further into the clutches of the Culture of Death.

I cannot stress enough just how much socialism and the culture of death dovetail with one another. At its core, socialism (and its logical offshoot, Marxism) is a rejection of Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian underpinnings. That is why organized religion (and its moral precepts) inevitably comes under severe persecution every place where socialists gain power (see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.). It is also why Marxism, under the guise of liberation theology, aggressively targets Christians (particularly Catholics) who are ignorant of their faith and undermines the supernatural aspects of revealed truth while focusing only on earthly, sociopolitical concerns (see Cuba, Venezuela, and most of Central America). In order for socialism to succeed, the reality of Jesus Christ as God the Son and bearer of eternal salvation must give way to the illusion of Jesus the hippie political rebel who commands only moral authority, and not tangible power such as that wielded by the state.

Christ tells us: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). St. Paul tells us: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God" (2 John 1:9). Socialists who attempt to pass themselves off as faithful Christians will speak loudly about social justice and service to the poor and downtrodden. This is a good and admirable goal, and should be shared by all Christians (understanding that "social justice" goes well beyond the liberal notion of the "common good" - which is an offshoot of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number" - and must necessarily take into account the sanctity and inviolability of human life, a truth rooted in the reality that we are each precious, unique, and irreplaceable beings lovingly and purposefully created in the image and likeness of God).

However, you will soon see that such individuals never address the supernatural truths of our faith: namely, Jesus Christ's fully human, fully divine nature, and our moral obligation to love Him not as our Redeemer, but in His eternal being as God the Son; our similar obligation to love God the Father and the Holy Spirit above all things and for Their own sake; the reality that we are created for eternal reconciliation with the Father, and must view salvation first and foremost as applying to our immortal souls; the reality of Satan and his demons, and their constant attempts to ruin our souls and deprive us of the greatest gift of all, purchased for us at the cost of the Precious Blood of Christ; and various other truths that are of infinitely greater importance than whether or not a politician supports minimum wage increases and universal healthcare. More to the point, you will never see such individuals seriously attempt to distinguish between their faith and their politics, for they see the two as one and inseparable and refuse to address any conflict - be it political or religious in nature - outside of a strictly political context (hence their chronic inability to label anyone who objects to their agenda - be it on political or religious grounds - as anything other than "right wing extremists" or "extreme right wing operatives").

I have spoken at length about groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and how they attempt to pervert authentic Catholicism in the minds of the faithful in order to promote their Marxist political agenda. I have spoken at length about how politicians who regularly support measures that in the end prove punitive to those who dare express authentically Christian views in public will pay lip service to their own Christian belief during election years (and then often proceed to display their profound ignorance of their professed belief by misquoting and misappropriating Sacred Scripture). And I have addressed how asinine it is to assert that a genuinely Catholic or Christian politician should check his or her beliefs at the door before discharging the duties of their elected office (whereas liberal self-professed "Catholics" and "Christians" are strangely never asked to do this and are even lauded for their "strong religious convictions").

Today, many voters will go to the polls and call BS on this long-running subterfuge. As the results are not yet in, there is no way of knowing at this moment exactly how big the left's losses will be. What I can say is that, regardless of the result, the work is not done for men and women of true faith. We must continue to push back against those who would silence us in the public sphere. We must continue to call out those who attempt to hijack our faith and portray it as some ugly caricature of what it truly is (or, in the case of liberation theologians and their ilk, as some morally minimalist advocacy of Marxist beliefs). Most importantly, we must continue to roll back all of the unchecked attempts to obscure America's Judeo-Christian heritage, apart from which our nation's Constitution simply cannot survive in any recognizable form.

Christ never promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against America. He only made that promise about his Church. But that does not absolve us of our moral obligation to fight back against the gates of hell wherever it seeks to prevail, for wherever it prevails, it will claim unsuspecting souls as the spoils of victory.

The devil knows he's lost the war. He now wages incessant battles to take as many people down with him as he can. We must engage him in each and everyone of those battles, so as to curtail his influence in this world. That includes the political as well as the religious sphere, for wherever the devil gains a lasting foothold politically, the Church militant will suffer. Go out and vote today. Do not vote merely by party affiliation. Vote according to what will be most pleasing to God and most spiteful to the devil. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Redemptive Suffering and Spiritual Combat

2010-08-02T14:27:00.001-07:00

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" It is a question that is almost as old as suffering itself. We live in a world that firmly believes that living a life of goodness will lead to good rewards. On this point, the world is absolutely right. However, the world far too often fails to understand that not all good rewards can be perceived through the use of our senses. And all too often, what is perceived by the world as a good reward is little more than a scrap that is tossed to us by an evil one who wishes to blind us to the reality of far greater rewards, so that, as William Wallace puts it in the movie Braveheart, we become so busy fighting for these scraps that we lose sight of our God given right to something better. I firmly believe that bad things happen to good people so that we can be reminded of the fact that something better awaits, and that we should not content ourselves merely with earthly consolation prizes.

A second question is often asked. It is much like the first question, but is far more direct in the answer that it seeks. The question is this: "How can a God who is good allow people to suffer?" It is a question that has led many bitter and disillusioned people, consumed by despair, to abandon their belief in God, or at least in the goodness of God; and unfortunately, once they do this despair is exactly what awaits them, for hope depends upon faith. And once a person ceases to believe in the existence or in the goodness of God he loses the very hope that allows him to cope with the suffering that remains a part of his life whether or not he chooses to believe.

No man escapes suffering. Not one of us. Whether it is a physical form of suffering such as a disease or a physical wound, whether it is an emotional suffering such as a broken heart, loneliness, or the death of a loved one, or whether it is a spiritual suffering such as struggling with discerning our vocation, suffering can and very often does find us all. God spares no man from suffering. And for those who would ask why God would allow good people to suffer, I am reminded of what Jesus Himself said to the rich young man who called Him "Good Teacher." Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." He said this that we may be reminded that God is the source of all good, and that we can do no good apart from him.

But even this does not answer the question, because even if we accept that no one is good but God alone, we have the example of the suffering of the One who was good. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Look at the good man who died on the Cross, and ask yourself: "If God had not allowed the very worst of things to happen to the very best of men, then how would the very best of things have been made available to me?"

I look at this, and I can't help but ask myself: "Is suffering necessarily a bad thing?"

Now mind you, I'm not saying that we should go out and seek suffering for its own sake. Far from it. That's called masochism, and those who engage in it are deeply disturbed individuals who derive no true benefit from what they are doing. But if we learn to accept the fact that suffering is an inevitable part of our life, then we can accept those sufferings when they do come and attempt to do some good with them.

We all know from personal experience that good things can come from suffering. We can all point to some painful episode in our past and identify good things that came about as a result of that painful episode. More to the point, we can look back and see that some good things that came about - things we treasure and which we would not trade for anything - would never have happened if those painful episodes had not taken place.

We also know that there are things in our lives for which we are willing to suffer. Those who have children will sacrifice everything for their sake. No greater love exists than to lay one's life down for the sake of another, Jesus tells us. Ask a parent sometime whose life they would choose to save if they had to choose between themselves and one of their children.

Of course, sacrifice usually takes on less severe forms. We have all been confronted with times where we had to choose between something we wanted and something that a loved one wanted. I think we'd all like to be able to say that we always denied ourselves for the sake of those we loved. Unfortunately, I think we can also say that we haven't always been that generous; but I like to think that we can all look back and remember times when we were. And that small cross of self-denial, while a source of discomfort, was also very rewarding when we saw the look of joy on the face of our beloved. Indeed, we can say that we took joy in that small cross.

We think about how much we love the people who are important to us, and what we are willing to sacrifice for them. How much more than that does God love us? It is a love beyond measure. It is a love so great that God the Father willingly sent God the Son to live and suffer as one of us. It is a love so great that God the Son willingly came and suffered for us when He had absolutely no obligation to do so. He recognized that through our sin we had incurred a debt so great that in our limited capacity we simply could not pay the devil his due, and so He willingly offered Himself up as a ransom infinitely more valuable than what was owed in order to redeem us. Jesus paid a debt He did not owe in order to help us settle a debt we could not pay. And He did it completely out of the boundless love in His Sacred Heart when He was under no obligation to do so.

And what was this debt that was paid? So many books and movies have tried to depict the Passion of Our Lord. So many Saints have been blessed with visions of those horrific events. But none can truly do the suffering of Our Lord justice. Even the frankly brutal depiction in the recent movie The Passion of the Christ, as much as it jarred our senses, falls laughably short. Consider that it was more than just the physical beatings He endured. Consider that it was more than just the many emotional humiliations that were visited upon His divine dignity. Consider that it was more than just the spiritual anguish of seeing His Blessed Mother's heart break, or that he saw the tears of His followers and the lament of the heavenly host of angels who were there, just waiting for Him to give the word so that they could come to the defense of their most Beloved, or who were even willing to offer themselves up for sacrifice in His place. Consider that, from the moment He left the upper room where He instituted the Eucharist and knelt in anguished prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the moment He was laid in the tomb of St. Joseph of Arimathea, He placed Himself completely at the mercy of the evil one. Satan and his legions were given this one chance, one opportunity in all of time or eternity, one chance to destroy God! One chance to throw everything he had at God - every horror that his sick, twisted, yet incredibly creative mind could devise - and God the Son humbly stood there, making no effort to fight back. Do you think the devil held back? Do you think there was a single kitchen sink that was not uprooted from its place in the bowels of hell? Do you think there was a single form of suffering known to man - and countless other forms besides - that were not inflicted upon Our Lord's precious form in that small window of opportunity afforded to the evil one? We think we know what it means to bear a cross. We should be thankful to God for our ignorance! Such was the love of the Eternal Word that He became flesh and dwelt among us, and did what no sane human being would ever do. He said, “Devil, do your worst!” And the devil did.

The Gospels tell us that when Christ knelt in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, His stress was so great that His sweat fell to the ground in drops of blood. It’s easy to overlook this moment in light of what the Lord later suffered, but it is such an important part of the Passion to understand. Ask a medical expert sometime what incredible amount of stress is needed to sweat blood, and then try to imagine how much greater the stress needed to be for the God-man to do so. Theologians and Saints blessed with visions of the events of the Passion have long held that in those moments when He knelt in prayer, Our Lord was receiving the final preparations for the ordeal that was now beginning for Him. In that time, He was shown every sin for which His sacrifice would bring forgiveness, and every sinner for which His sacrifice would bring redemption. He saw each and every one of us, for before we were formed in the womb He knew us; and He saw each of our joys, works, and sufferings. He saw everything in us that was sinful and broken, and He saw every grace that would be given to us from that infinite deposit of grace that He was about to win for us. He saw us, He knew us, and He loved us. And as He saw each of us, He knew in His heart that He would gladly do it for any one of us, to say nothing of being willing to do it for all of us.

In the Agony in the Garden, Jesus assumed the weight of the world. He was shown every cross that each of us would bear, and each of those crosses, burdens that are so terrible for us to bear alone, were but a mere speck, a speck of a speck, of the True Cross that He was about to bear.

It is important for us to understand this fact. Every cross that we have borne, every cross that we now bear, and every cross that we have yet to bear was added to the burden that Our Lord carried for us. So it is with every person who has ever lived and who is yet to enter the world. And just as each of us is unique, so every cross that we bear is unique. No two crosses are alike. More than one person may be affected by the same event - such as siblings losing a parent - but due to a variety of factors each person will respond to the event in a different way and as a result they will bear separate and unique crosses. And just as each cross that we bear is unique, so are the graces that we receive to bear each cross unique. We often speak of wishing we were in a certain person’s shoes, or of certain people with whom we would never want to trade places. We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that others are better or worse off than we are as far as bearing crosses. We need to abandon this way of thinking. We could literally trade places with anyone in the world - from the person perceived as living the most wretched existence to the person perceived as leading the most charmed life - and I guarantee you that within a week everyone would be begging to have their old lives back. This is because while we might be able to trade the crosses, we can never trade the corresponding graces. Each cross that we bear comes with a unique grace to be able to bear that cross. We are literally tailor-made for our crosses. Such is the will of God, and it is one of the many reasons why He has a unique plan for each of us.

If we understood just how much of a grace the crosses we bear can themselves be, we would not want to trade them away anyway. None of us can possibly understand how truly blessed we are to have the crosses we carry. As I mentioned before, each of those crosses is a speck of the one True Cross - but it is a unique speck. No one else can ever fully understand what it is like to bear one of your crosses. There are those who may have some notion of what it is like from bearing a similar cross, but their cross, however similar, is just as unique as yours. No one can fully help you bear the burden. No one, that is, except the one who already bore that burden. If any of us could truly understand what a unique and irreplaceable bond we have with Our Lord through each cross that we bear - something we share with Our Lord that is uniquely ours - we would bear each cross joyfully and without complaint, despite the suffering involved (and the suffering must be present, otherwise it is not truly a cross). But we don’t see it, because of our fallen nature. So we must pray every day for the eyes to see how blessed we truly are, so that we may live our lives accordingly with joy in our hearts.

As He knelt in the Garden, Our Lord not only took upon Himself the weight of the world upon His shoulders, He also gave us the proper example of how a burden should be carried. There are those who look at His comment - “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” - and they say that Jesus was experiencing a moment of weakness. If so, then as the perfect human being it must have been a perfectly human moment of weakness. By that I mean that Jesus is revealing something to us about the nature of man. Remember that He entered the world free from sin, and was not affected by the effects of original sin that leads to our fallen nature. If He is telling His Father that He would prefer not to suffer, then the obvious conclusion is that man had an aversion to suffering even before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Thus, Jesus is having an honest moment where He is telling the Father that He is not looking forward to what comes next. In those moments when He knelt in prayer, Our Lord was, in fact, already bearing the Cross of redemption.

But Jesus did not just come into the world to redeem creation. He also came to sanctify us, to teach us how to rise above our own weaknesses and to turn our eyes toward God despite our fears and aversions. Thus He goes on to say, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Let Your will be done Lord, not mine. Jesus is calling to us to obey the will of God. More than that, He is calling us to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and soul, and to be willing to make any sacrifice that is pleasing to Him for the sake of being with Him. Jesus offered up His cross - His most perfect Cross - for the perfect fulfillment of God’s will. For our own suffering to have any merit, we are called to unite our own meager crosses to those of Our Lord, apart from whom no good can be done.

In the Agony in the Garden and the following events of the Passion, Jesus also shows us another important aspect of how to suffer properly for Our Lord. Though He had every right to do so, He didn’t just march up to Calvary at the head of a royal procession and say, “Let’s get this over with.” No, for the duration of the Passion he submitted to the authorities - both natural and preternatural - that would carry out His Passion. Jesus knew that the crosses we bear in our everyday lives would hold no redemptive value unless we bore them humbly. That is the single greatest challenge that each of us faces when it comes to embracing our crosses. This is certainly the case in my own life. Lord knows - literally - that I have not always been gracious in receiving the crosses that He has willed for me to carry. I can point to many times in my own life where my crosses left me bitter and disillusioned, and more recently than I care to admit. I know we have all had this struggle. Jesus set the proper example for us. When we recognize that we are carrying a cross, we must recognize our own weakness - “let this cup pass from me” - but also recognize the grace we have been given to be able to say, “Let your will be done, Lord, not mine,” and move forward, asking for the help of the one who bore the True Cross to help us bear own meager cross humbly towards whatever goal God desires.

Of course, we are not without an enemy as we seek to embrace our crosses and fulfill God’s will. This enemy seeks to remain in the shadows, always working to separate the Body of Christ from its Head, always seeking to separate us from the Cross that proved to be his own downfall, so that he can pick us off one by one. It is the same ancient enemy who first posed the question, as innocently as his twisted lips could convey it: “Why would a good and loving God let you suffer like this?” Always, the devil strikes first where he knows it will hurt most - our pride. Why, he would ask, would you be willing to believe in someone who would torture you like this, and worse, expects you to delight in that torture! That doesn’t sound like a loving God to me. You deserve better. There’s so many pleasures around you. Why keep denying yourself? There’s no need to suffer like this.

Always, the devil tries to convince us first that God doesn’t exist, because not believing in God means not believing in the devil; and he wants us to think that the voice counseling us to turn away from God belongs to us and not to him. When he sees that he cannot turn us from believing in the reality of God, then he tries to undermine the reality of God as good and loving. So many people in the world today who claim to be atheist and launch a crusade against the Christian religion - people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens - are so full of bitterness towards anything that smacks of Christianity that I have a very hard time believing they are true atheists. You do not launch a crusade against something you do not believe in. You launch a crusade against something you hate. I believe the devil, having failed to convince the likes of these that God does not exist, convinced them instead that God was not good and loving, thus making Him in their mind an entity worthy of revilement. Nothing else can explain their desire to destroy all evidence of anything that gives glory to God.

The devil’s next trick, after failing to convince us that God is neither present nor good, is to make us think that God did not intend for us to suffer. And if we counter that with the obvious question of why He would allow His own Son to suffer if this was indeed the case, then he would answering by saying that Jesus suffered so no one else would have to. To which I reply: “Yeah, tell that to His Apostles.” Every step of the way, the devil will try to talk us out of the need to embrace our crosses. Mind you, he so hates us that he still wants us to suffer from the burden of the crosses, he just does not want us to find redemption in that suffering.

This is the battle that is waged around us every day - the devil always trying to appeal to our pride so we do not grow in that wonderful virtue of humility, while our guardian angel works to keep him at bay so that divine grace can take firm hold in our hearts and leads us to do what is good. You see, the devil is always taking what is good and from God and creating twisted versions of these things. God gives us virtues, and the devil gives us vices; and through those vices, seven deadly sins. God gives humility. St. Augustine writes that humility is the foundation of all other virtues; hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there can be no other virtue except in mere appearance - and the devil is all about appearances! Without humility, we cannot practice the greatest virtue of all: charity, which properly defined is the love of God above all things and for His own sake. Simply put, without humility we cannot truly love God.

To oppose humility, the devil gives us pride, the love of our own excellence, that wretched sin that was the catalyst for Lucifer’s own fall from grace, and which keeps us from acknowledging our own limitations and our own brokenness and blinds us to the glory of God. Pride is the foundation of all vices and all of the deadly sins, because pride is what allows us to justify our sins even as we are committing them. And unless we embrace our crosses as an opportunity to grow in humility and thus closer to God, the devil will use our sufferings as an opportunity to nurture our wounded pride and drive us further from God, as he has succeeded in doing with so many embittered souls.

This is the battle that is being waged every day. It is the same battle that Our Lord fought, with the devil trying to turn Him away from the mission He took on flesh in order to accomplish. This is the battle of which we need to be aware, so that we can cooperate in the act of our salvation by responding to the sacrifice of the Cross and the promptings of divine grace. We must forever be mindful of the fact that hell is not a punishment, but a choice. God desires that we be with Him in eternity, but He so respects our free will that He will never force us to choose Him. The crosses we bear are such a wonderful opportunity to respond to the work of divine grace. They are the perfect way to unite ourselves to and embrace the crucified Christ, so that just as He conquered death we may, through His divine example, gain everlasting life. They are, finally, a constant reminder of what Christ told us concerning the need to grow in holiness in this life. He never promised it would be easy, He only promised that it would be worth it. God bless!

Writer's Block

2010-05-21T21:47:00.000-07:00

It seems like a lot of the blogs I have followed have gone through a bit of a dry spell, where they can go months without a new post. This blog, sadly, has not been immune to that phenomenon. You'd think a guy whose mind is constantly running would never run out of things to say or write about; and in my case, you'd be right. The problem with me has never been a lack of things to speak about. It's always been an issue of taking one of the many thoughts swimming around in my head and running with it. Occasionally, I'll be successful with that. I have a number of blog posts that attest to that fact. However, when I can't settle on one thought, I go nuts trying to hold on to a single coherent thought; and that's when writer's block sets in.

I guess that's been the state of things since my last blog post nearly 5 months ago. I remain unemployed (now going on 15 months), and far more often than I care to admit, my days have been spent watching TV, surfing the internet, and playing The West and Business Tycoon Online among other addictive internet MMOs (massive multiplayer online games). These activities all have one thing in common: they are, for the most part, mindless pursuits and a distraction from the much more mundane activities of day to day life. I will occasionally have the presence of mind to pick up a book, add a bit to a Catholic-themed fantasy story that has become a 6 year long hobby of mine, or even give an RCIA presentation or help out on a young adult retreat when called to do so. But on the whole, I cannot honestly say that I have been making the most constructive use of my time of late.

I would ask for prayers from those who still drop by this blog from time to time. I ask always first and foremost that God's will be done in my life. I just pray that as I continue to discern what that will is to be, that I may be graced with the discipline to structure my life around the daily staples of prayer and pursuits that will actively advance me along the path that God has set down for me.

And one last thing: even though I sometimes have trouble latching on to a single thought and running with it, I am always open to suggestions from others about particular thoughts that I can focus on. If you can think of something that you would like to see me write about and which falls within my competence (whether it is my primary discipline of theology or related fields such as history, philosophy, or politics within a theological context), please feel free to e-mail me. Or even if you want to chat. I am notoriously bad about keeping in touch, but I do tend to be pretty responsive when contacted by others ;) God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Twelve Days of Obama

2009-12-24T07:59:00.001-08:00

It's been a while, I know. There's more to come, but I thought I'd leave this for now for your reading pleasure. I know, I had WAY too much time on my hands when I wrote this :-). Enjoy, and Merry Christmas!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

On the first day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
A fast track to bankruptcy.

On the second day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Two losing war plans
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the third day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the fourth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the fifth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the sixth day of Chrismas Obama gave to me:
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the seventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the eighth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the ninth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the tenth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the eleventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandment scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

On the twelfth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Twelve scandals brewing,
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.

Commemorating the Feast of a Namesake Saint

2009-10-15T20:28:00.000-07:00

I will admit that, while living in Steubenville a few years ago, I experienced a bout of jealousy over the fact that so many of my friends shared names with prominent Catholic Saints, whereas the name Gerald did not appear to stand out in this regard. This led me to do some research to see if there were, in fact, Catholic Saints named Gerald. My search proved more fruitful than I imagined, as I found at least four St. Geralds among the Church Triumphant (not counting those that also went by the alternate spelling Gerard). There was St. Gerald of Mayo, noted as a holy abbot of one of the prominent Irish monasteries of the late 7th and early 8th centuries. There was St. Gerald of Braga, the Portuguese Bishop who died in 1109 and was known for being a vocal opponent of lay investiture (the process of lay nobility appointing hand-picked candidates to ecclessial posts). And there was St. Gerald of Sauve-Majeure, a noted 11th century Benedictine monk and reformer.

There was, however, one particular St. Gerald that caught my attention, and to whom I eventually developed a devotion. As I was remiss in failing to note his feast day this past Tuesday (October 13), I would like to make mention of him now. St. Gerald of Aurillac was a French nobleman who lived during the 10th century. He is unusual among the Saints of his day in many respects, most notably in the fact that he was a layman and lived an ascetic and pious life during a period of history specially noted for the immoral excesses of its nobility. The following biographical sketch, found here, briefly describes the Saint's life and notable accomplishments.

Gerald of Aurillac, Confessor

Born 855 at Saint-Cirgues; died 909. He was of noble birth and suffered lengthy illness in his youth. For this reason, he gave much time to meditation, study, and prayer instead of the martial pursuits that ordinarily would have been expected.

When he succeeded his father as count of Aurillac in Auvergne, and owner of considerable estates, he continued his life of devotion and became noted for his piety and generosity to the poor. He was distinguished for the justice and efficiency with which he discharged the duties of a wealthy nobleman.

His personal life was no less virtuous, and markedly well-ordered and religious. He dressed modestly, ate little, rose every morning at 2:00 a.m.--even when travelling--to say the first part of the Divine Office, and then he assisted at Mass.

But it is possible that he would not have become well-known had he not founded the monastery at Aurillac. After a pilgrimage to Rome, he built a church under the invocation of Saint Peter, and, c. 890, a Benedictine abbey at Aurillac, which was to become famous when it was taken over by the Cluniac order.

He led a life of great goodness for someone of his rank during this rather immoral period in history. He considered becoming a monk at his monastery but was persuaded against it by Gausbert, the bishop of Cahors, who counseled that he would be more useful acting as a layman who devoted himself to his neighbors and dependents. He gave a great part of his revenue to the poor and endowed the monastery generously.

He was blind for the last seven years of his life. He died at Cezenac, Quercy, and was buried at his abbey. He is the patron saint of Upper Auvergne.

Saint Odo of Cluny wrote a Life of Saint Gerald that made him celebrated in medieval France. A later member of Saint Gerald of Aurillac's family was Saint Robert of Chaise-Dieu (d. 1087; canonized c. 1095) who founded the great abbey of that name in Auvergne (Attwater, Encyclopedia, Sitwell, White).

For more information about St. Gerald of Aurillac, you can visit the following links:
- The Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac - by St. Odo of Cluny, a 10th century monk whose research into the life of St. Gerald provides us with most of our extant knowledge of the Saint. This link is to a preview, so some pages are missing, but still a lot of good information.
- Entry on St. Gerald from Butler's Lives of the Saints
- Wikipedia article

As a single man still discerning his vocation and someone who has for the past seven years struggled with recurring and occasionally debilitating bouts of sciatica, I am especially attracted to St. Gerald of Aurillac as an intercessor because he has been proclaimed the patron of bachelors and the disabled. He remains a wonderful model of holiness for laity, for men that are either called to live chaste single life or still discerning a vocation, for those who struggle with disabilities (or any other obstacles that stand in the way of the fulfillment of God's will in our lives) and for those who struggle with a tendency towards materialism. For those seeking a saintly devotion, and even for those are not, I recommend this holy Frenchman as an intercessor. St. Gerald of Aurillac, pray for us! God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Unveiling The Latest Weapon In The War On Terror

2009-10-06T16:14:00.000-07:00

Granted, the Obama administration isn't putting as much money into the military these days, but the brilliant minds in the White House war room have developed a new weapon that is both cost effective and sure to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies...

Sleep well tonight, my fellow Americans. We are in good hands :-)

Happy Feast Of St. Francis And Respect Life Sunday!

2009-10-04T12:12:00.000-07:00

It is a happy yet fitting coincidence that the two should fall on the same day this year. St. Francis is widely and properly regarded as one of the greatest lovers of life (and especially of the Author of Life) that the Church has ever produced.

Let us remember St. Francis as a lover of life, but also as someone who recognized the pre-eminent value of human life above that of all other material creatures. Let us also remember that he had above all else a deep and abiding love for God and His Church, and dedicated every waking moment of every day to furthering the truths espoused by both. It is one of the great tragedies of modern times that a city named after him by well meaning Spanish missionaries has become a hotbed of hostility towards that which St. Francis loved most. Let us then, on this day, pray for that city, and for all others who set themselves against the truth, that they may experience a true conversion of heart and stand up for the inviolability of human life; and that they may devote their lives to serving the One who created all life and gave that life meaning. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Liturgical Abuse In Destin, FL: The Celebrant Priest Involves His Dog In the Procession

2009-09-21T10:31:00.000-07:00

Here's the description of the video as it appears on its original Youtube page:

"After a promotion for a dog shampoo by the pastor, Fr. Thomas Guido, before Sunday Mass, this was the procession we witnessed while on our vacation in Destin, FL. The priest can be e-mailed at pastor@rcc-destin.org"

Here is the video. This really is sinking to a new low:

I'm willing to excuse abuses when the person committing the abuse is genuinely ignorant of what is being done. It is extremely difficult, however, to imagine that this pastor did not know that dogs have no place in Mass processions, or that dog shampoo has no place on an altar. Please e-mail this pastor at the address listed above, and if you are in the Tallahassee-Pensacola diocese please contact your bishop and make sure he cannot claim ignorance over this blatant disregard for liturgical norms. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Token Pro-Life Gesture From A Man Who Has Done Enormous Violence To The Pro-Life Cause

2009-09-17T18:20:00.000-07:00

If Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins thinks this will succeed in whitewashing his past apostasy and allow him to curry favor with faithful Catholics, he is sorely mistaken.

That said, a journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step, and we retain a moral obligation to pray that Fr. Jenkins will completely repudiate his past anti-Catholic behavior. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Announcing New Programming In EWTN's Fall Line-Up

2009-09-03T09:57:00.000-07:00

I occasionally am sent press releases from the wonderful television apostolate EWTN to post on my blog so my readers can be advised of upcoming programs. The lineup listed below is quite an impressive one. If you don't make EWTN a part of your regular television viewing, I strongly encourage you to do so. If you do not have EWTN as part of your cable line-up, I strongly encourage you to write your cable company and ask them to add it. I would especially recommend it for those Catholics living near parishes where the Catholic faith is not being presented faithfully and accurately.

Anyway, please read the following press release, and enjoy the upcoming season of EWTN programming. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

EWTN Unveils Season’s New Series

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – EWTN Global Catholic Network is proud to unveil a host of new series, which will debut in September. Start programming your DVR now so you preview the shows and find your new favorites. Here is a quick synopsis of what viewers will discover: (Editors: for high-resolution photos, please go to www.ewtn.com/media/Sept2009NewSeries)

NEW SERIES

Theater of the Word: If you love live plays, but hate the hefty price tag, join Kevin O’Brien and the actors of Theater of the Word as they bring a host of biblical and religious-themed stories to life. (Saturdays, 4 p.m. ET)

A Light for All Nations: Do you frequently wish you understood all the fuss about Vatican II? One of its most important documents was Lumen Gentium. That’s where you’ll find all the talk about the role of the laity, the “universal call to holiness,” and a lot more. If you want to “get it,” tape this new series with Fr. Brian Mullady. (Sundays at 5:30 a.m. ET and Thursdays at 11 p.m. ET)

St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei: You’ve heard all the dis-information in “The DaVinci Code.” Now get the facts about the life, mission and apostolate of this great modern saint with Damon Owen and John Coverdale. (Sundays, 5 p.m. ET and Fridays at 10:30 p.m. ET)

Forgotten Heritage: Europe and the Eucharist: Learn how belief in the Eucharist actually shaped Western Culture in this exciting new series with Father Owen Gorman and Fr. John Hogan. (Sundays, 5:30 p.m. ET and Wednesdays, 11:30 p.m. ET)

CHILDREN’S PROGRAMMING

The Roamin’ Catholic: With a loveable wackiness all his own, Rob Wahl, the Roamin’ Catholic, and a penguin who lives in a freezer, traverse the globe on exciting missions of discovery that bring kids an entertaining look at the Faith (Mondays, 4:30 p.m. ET).

The Divine Mercy Chaplet for Kids: Your chidren will be enchanted with this animated special, which features St. Faustina teaching her young friends about the Divine Mercy Devotion and how to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Adults may learn something too! (Fridays at 5 p.m. ET)

RETURNING TO EWTN

EWTN Cinema: Gather around the television set for a series of classic and inspiring Catholic films such as “The Road to Lourdes,” “A Time to Remember,” “Karol: the Pope, the Man,” “The Passion of Bernadette,” “The Great Mr. Handel,” and many others. (Saturdays, 8 p.m. ET)

Apostolate for Family Consecration: In this wide-ranging new series, you’ll learn about the mysteries of the Church, Sacred Scripture, papal documents and Vatican II. (Sundays at 11 a.m. ET)

NEW EPISODES

Christ In The City: How do you live a Christian life amidst the hustle and bustle of contemporary life? Gain insights from New York City Pastor Father George Rutler, STD. (Tuesdays, 11 p.m. ET).

G.K. Chesterton: Apostle of Common Sense: The President of the American Chesterton Society, Dale Ahlquist, takes viewers inside the unparalleled wit and wisdom of this popular 20th Century thinker and writer. (Sundays, 9 p.m. ET and Wednesdays, 11 a.m. ET).

Defending Life XV: Fr. Frank Pavone and Janet Morana take an up-close look at the contemporary pro-life movement in America, exploring events and activities, talking to experts, and more (Fridays, 10 p.m. ET).

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 28th year, is available in over 150 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN, is the largest religious media network in the world.

Thoughts On The Passing Of Ted Kennedy

2009-08-26T16:24:00.000-07:00

As you are no doubt aware, 77 year-old Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer today; and as expected, news programs have consisted largely of wall-to-wall coverage paying tribute to his career.

I am going to refrain from speaking ill of the dead - especially on the day of the deceased's passing - and will therefore not delve into the many reasons why I do not agree with all the praise that has been heaped upon the late Senator. The fact is, a human life was lost today, one that, like all other human lives, is unique and irreplaceable. I sincerely lament the many personal tragedies that he endured throughout his life - from seeing all three of his older brothers cut down in the prime of life (the oldest during World War II, the others by way of assassins' bullets) to the tragic deaths of numerous younger members of the family to the many scandals that plagued the Kennedy family - and also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and for the consolation of his family.

Those who have read my blog or spoken with me personally can well imagine my opinion of Ted Kennedy as a person and as a politician. Suffice it to say, I do not think that his political career is one worth celebrating. Throughout his life, Kennedy engaged in personal and political behavior that was a source of tragedy in the lives of others. To those who have been affected in such a way, I can only ask that you also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and the consolation of his family, and recall the value of forgiveness, which is not only a source of spiritual healing, but also (and more importantly) the course of action that is most pleasing to God.

I can only pray that the Senator died in a state of grace, and that by the grace and mercy of God we may one day have the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in the eternal Beatific Vision. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Mystery Of Faith Vs. The Illusion Of Control

2009-08-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

The likes of Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins constantly assure us that faith is nothing more than a form of intellectual bondage, a false illusion of something unattainable that prevents man from reaching his true intellectual potential. Faith, according to them, is something that man is supposed to outgrow as he matures.

If Maher, Hitchens, and Dawkins are what pass for mature, intellectually liberated minds, then I'm afraid the human race never really stood a chance.

There is a method to the the madness of these so-called "militant atheists." The motivation is really rather simple, in every sense of the word: since they can't discern the existence of a higher power through their senses, nor conclude that there is such an existence through their use of reason (emphasis being on their use of reason, as opposed to man's use of reason), then such an existence cannot be possible.

At least, this is what they tell themselves. That they devote so much of their lives to disproving the existence of such an entity is not indicative of a lack of believe in such an entity. Rather, it is indicative of a desire that such an entity not exist.

That's their dirty little secret: Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, and those who think like them aren't so much convinced that God doesn't exist as they are in the process of attempting to convince themselves that He does not even as they desperately try to convince others. Why they are trying to convince themselves of this is anyone's guess. It could be that they are unsatisfied with their experience of having believed in a higher power. It could be that they don't like the idea of having to acknowledge a power greater than themselves. It could be that they don't like the thought of having to accept things on faith, which would require an acknowledgment of the limits of their imagined intellectual prowess. It could be any of these things, or it could be all these things, and many other things besides.

What is painfully clear, however, is that self-professed atheists - whether they truly do not believe in the existence of God or simply wished that God did not exist - are left with a void in their lives and in their ideology that they are constantly trying to fill. And in the process of refusing to acknowledge the existence of a higher power that asks us to surrender to His will as a condition for attaining the greatest treasure man can attain (i.e. eternal life in the presence of the Lord), then they refuse to acknowledge the need to surrender to the will of another. This leads to an obsession with controlling one's own life, because as much as man might like to think that life is a series of random events with no greater meaning, human nature still requires that we acknowledge that someone is in charge. In the absence of a higher power than ourselves, then, logic would dictate that we are in charge of ourselves. Holding this mentality, however, requires a great deal of self-deception. Given the inextricable bond between the existence of a higher power and the need for faith, it almost invariably follows that the man who refuses to acknowledge the existence of a higher power will refuse to acknowledge the need to have faith in anybody but one's self.

And yet, faith makes demands of all men, not just those who believe in a higher power. It requires us to trust to things that we simply cannot predict or control (whether we wish to acknowledge such a lack of control or not). Without faith, we'd never turn our backs to anyone, for fear of being betrayed by everyone. Without faith, we would never cross an intersection, because we could never trust that the drivers of other cars will obey the traffic laws that govern safe driving. Without faith, we could never eat food we did not prepare personally, because we would not trust others not to contaminate the food, whether by accident or design. We take so many things for granted, assuming that they will happen in a certain way because they always have happened in a certain way, such as a light always turning on when you flick the switch or a dog who knows you never biting you when you reach to pet its head. And yet, if we really stopped to think about it, as some poor souls unfortunately do, we realize that past experience is no guarantee of future performance, and we would be in a state of constant paranoia about things going constantly awry. Yet, even the paranoid person is forced to accept on faith that certain things, such as the beating of his own heart, will continue to happen, or else he would not be able to function at all.

Among many other things, faith is an acceptance of the fact that there are things beyond the grasp of both our reason and our control, and that we must entrust such things to the providence of beings who can grasp them. Otherwise, society itself would never materialize, as the cooperation between men that is so essential to the proper function of a society would be obliterated by a lack of trust between men. Like it as not, trust is a form of faith.

In a very irrational world, then, there is nothing more irrational than a conscious lack of faith, or its logical extension, which is a conscious refusal to acknowledge that we lack control over every facet of our life.

The only thing we can control is our own behavior (but not its consequences), and the irony is that the people who are most obsessed with the notion of control and who scream the loudest about being allowed to do as they please are the ones least inclined to exercise self-control. Not coincidentally, they are also the most likely to profess a lack of faith. They mistake freedom for licentiousness, and in the process they fall into the most insidious form of bondage imaginable: they become slaves to their own passions, all the while basking in the illusion that they are fully in control of themselves and experiencing true freedom.

Faith, then, is a surrender to the ultimate reality that man has only limited control over the circumstances of his life. In a world obsessed with controlling its own destiny, such surrender is seen as an action of the weak-minded and unenlightened. And that particular illusion is advanced by the likes of Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, men whose disillusionment with the concept of faith and belief in a higher power has led to delusions of the worst sort in other facets of their lives.

It's their loss. One can only hope that they will seek what they have lost before it is lost to them forever.

To paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, the mysteries of faith begin where human reason finds its limit. When seeking to understand the importance of having faith in our lives, acknowledging that fact - and understanding its implications for the level of control we can truly exercise over our own lives - is not a bad place to start. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Musings On The Assumption Of Our Blessed Mother, Revisited

2009-08-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

I shared my thoughts regarding this feast in a blog post dated exactly one year ago today. Please revisit that post for my thoughts. Happy Feast of the Assumption! God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Usual "Catholic" Suspects Line Up In Support Of Obamacare

2009-08-13T07:38:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of the always excellent Catholic Key blog.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Thus you will know them by their fruits."

- Matthew 7: 15-20

The rotted fruit continues its mad scramble to defend all of Obama's works while chanting "Lord, Lord" to appease those well-meaning souls who do not know any better. Do not be taken in by their deception. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

This Pretty Well Sums Up One Of The Silliest News Stories Of Modern Times...

2009-08-03T19:19:00.000-07:00

The Battle For Life In Health Care Reform: Catholics United Vs. Family Research Council

2009-08-02T06:34:00.000-07:00

Link, courtesy of Catholic.org (Catholic Online).

A snippet of the above-linked article:

Chris Korzen, the Executive Director of “Catholics United” lambasted an Ad currently being aired by the "Family Research Council’s" Action arm. He accused the predominantly evangelical Pro-Life and Pro-Family group of “using abortion scare tactics to turn pro-life voters against health reform.” He added that “If the Family Research Council was truly committed to human life it would focus its efforts on ensuring that the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack heath insurance can get the care they need. This attack ad is unhelpful, untruthful, and not at all pro-life.”

Tom McClusky, a Catholic and the Senior Vice President for “FRC Action” would have none of it. He told the Catholic News Agency that “Catholics United” was either deceived or participating in deception on this critical issue, “On the issue of where in the health care legislation is abortion, Family Research Council Action agrees with Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Pro-life Office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,” He cited the letter dated July 29th, 2009, from Justin Cardinal Rigali which insisted that “much needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding.”

There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that Catholics United is participating in the deception willingly. Their entire existence has been dedicated to deceiving faithful Catholics into supporting a decidedly un-Catholic political agenda, and to silencing those who dare to call attention to their willful deception. Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot stress this enough: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United is little more than an outgrowth of the same tired movement of extreme left-wing apostasy that has plagued the Catholic Church for the last four decades, attempting to turn people away from the truth while acting under the guise of faithful Catholicism (the very definition of which they and their relativistic ideological comrades have long worked to obscure). In that sense, there is nothing truly special about them. However, they have warranted more attention of late because of their close ties to the Obama administration - four of their members now work either in Congress or within the administration itself - and the fact that their Marxist message reaches wider audiences courtesy of funding from left-wing zealots like George Soros.

Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the so-called "Catholics for Choice," and other agents of the culture of death have endorsed this health care bill. Bear in mind that these groups exist solely to keep abortion legal and to expand the scope of its practice. You can bet that neither they nor any other avowed enemy of the pro-life movement - such as the aforementioned Catholics United - will ever support a political initiative that fails to do exactly that. Continue to contact your Senators and Representative, and make sure they know of the moral opposition to this legislative atrocity. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Fraudulent Catholic Group NETWORK Supports Massive Health Care Package, Asks Faithful Catholics To Disregard "Insignificant Details"

2009-07-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

Excellent overview of the situation, courtesy of The Catholic Key. If this blog is not part of your regular reading, it should be.

When fraudulent Catholic groups try to distract you from the "insignificant details," it is a sure sign that the devil lurks in those details. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish!

2009-07-28T16:38:00.000-07:00

Without going into too much detail or finger pointing, tragedy struck my household on Sunday. While giving a long-overdue cleaning to my 10 gallon aquarium, the tank's 8 occupants - 3 Eastern Australian Rainbowfish, 2 Black Phantom Tetras, 2 Black Neon Tetras, and a lone Red Serpa Tetra - were placed in a medium sized wash basin. Some water from the aquarium was placed in the basin, but was mixed in with some tap water that was not properly treated; and I have reason to believe that the residue of a certain Procter and Gamble product had not been completely rinsed from the wash basin itself.

As soon as they were put in, the largest of the rainbowfish began thrashing about; within minutes it was floating on its side, still clinging to life. It thrashed about some more, and in the process it apparently caught one of the Black Neons and sent it flying through the air into the opposite side wall of the basin. Whether it was injured by the thrashing or was already feeling the ill effects of whatever had obviously contaminated the water I could not say, but when the Black Neon landed in the water it immediately went belly up. By the time the rainbowfish stopped moving shortly thereafter, the other two rainbowfish were also thrashing about on their sides. These died less than 5 minutes later. By then the second Black Neon and the lone Red Serpa were floating upside down, having died without my even noticing it. That left the two Black Phantoms; but by the time I had prepared another container for them with treated water, one of them was floating on its side, just seconds from death. The lone surviving Black Phantom - the first fish I ever bought for the tank more than fifteen months ago - still looked healthy. I immediately put it in the new container, where it seemed to be doing alright; but when I returned a few minutes later, it too was dead.

I am not the type to treat the loss of pets on the same level as the loss of friends and family, not by a long shot. Still, these were among God's creatures, and had been living in community together for well over a year. They were very hardy fish, as I only lost two others (a second Red Serpa and a third Black Phantom) during the course of the last year. Losing all eight of them was truly unfortunate.

The lesson has been learned, as far as aquarium maintenance has been concerned. We finished cleaning the aquarium, draining it of all the old water, and refilled it and treated the new water. I let the filter run for two days, and went out to buy new fish for the tank today.

I have decided not to buy tetras again. They are beautiful fish, but they tend not to be very lively and often leave a lot food behind to pollute the tank (a problem I most definitely do not have with my goldfish aquarium). I am also not buying rainbowfish. Again, they are exceptionally beautiful fish, reflecting the full spectrum of the rainbow when properly cared for and under the proper lighting (hence their name). They are also hardy, quite lively, and are healthy eaters. Unfortunately, they grew to larger lengths than I expected, and are not good fish to buy for a 10 gallon tank. Besides that, they are arguably as messy as the goldfish; and I had tremendous difficulty keeping the aquarium clean and the water clear after introducing them to the tank.

It really boiled down to four choices for me, as far as finding fish that were aesthetically pleasing, small enough to be kept in larger numbers in a 10 gallon tank, and affordable: platies, guppies, danios, and barbs.

I considered getting platies, but I've pretty much decided that if I ever buy a smaller display tank that I would put a few platies in it, so I decided not to get any yet. Besides that, some species of platy are notorious jumpers, and my 10 gallon tank has an area back by the filter that can be exploited by suicidal fish.

I love guppies. They are playful, colorful, and you can fit quite a few of them into a 10 gallon tank safely. The problem is that "safely" is a relative term. I prefer my fish to be hardy, and guppies will die if you look at them the wrong way. I have never been able to keep any alive for more than a few months. Granted, I'm no expert - and anyone who's lived with me knows that I haven't always been the most diligent person when it comes to keeping aquariums clean (you know who you are: shut up! :-) - but even the most diligent aquarium maintainers I know tell me not to grow too attached to guppies. They are extremely fragile.

Fragile is not a term you can apply to danios. There are two species of danios I've had in the past: Zebra Danios (not the GloFish variety) and Giant Danios. If I was a betting man, I would bet on these guys surviving nuclear winter. As a child, I once had a tank with three zebras and three giants. The tank was 10 gallons and was too small for such a set up; while zebras never get bigger than an inch and a half, Giant Danios can grow to as large as 6 inches and are recommended for 20+ gallon tanks. Despite this, all six fish were still alive after two years, which was more than could be said of their ever-changing tankmates (yeah, I know, we had way too many fish in the tank; we had no clue what we were doing, which makes the danios' survivability all the more impressive). Eventually, the three zebras died within a day of each other, due to some sickness that only affected their particular species. All three Giant Danios survived for at least another year, and were still in the tank when we gave it away to relatives. Danios are great fish for a starter tank. Ultimately, though, I wanted more colorful fish, and they just didn't fit the bill.

In the end, I ended up buying 3 male Cherry Barbs. The name gives a pretty good indication of their color pattern, which occurs only among the males. They grow up to 2 inches; the three I bought are still young, and nowhere near that size. In keeping with traditional start-up rules, I'll introduce the fish into the aquarium a few at a time. In a few days, I will go back and buy 3 more. I thought about getting females, but this species breeds pretty quickly and I simply don't have enough space to house all the small fry. Once I get the next batch, I'll stop for the foreseeable future. Eventually (read: when I can afford it), I'll buy a larger tank that can support various species of schools. It would be nice to have something like that to display. For now, I'll keep the 12 gallon goldfish tank and the 10 gallon barb tank and see how they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much describes what I've been doing these past few days. On a related note, any job leads (especially Church-related job leads) in the greater Jacksonville area would be most appreciated :-) God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Once Again: This, Ladies And Gentlemen, Is Who Represents My Home District - Now With Subtitles!

2009-07-28T16:02:00.000-07:00

I posted this once before, but I believe the subtitles make the point more vividly. A few reminders are in order:

- This is not a guest speaker. This is the duly-elected United States Representative of what is arguably the most heavily gerrymandered district in the country. Her votes actually make a difference when it comes to determining the extent of government intervention in health care and private industry. Not surprisingly, she is squarely in the Obama camp on virtually every issue.

- She has both a bachelor's and master's degree from Florida A&M University, a specialty certificate from the University of Florida (which does not technically make her a UF alum, but that does not stop her from making that claim), and was on the faculty at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville. Keep that in mind when you watch the video and see the extent of her grasp of the English language.

- The woman loves to claim the moral high ground when she takes a public stance on any issue, especially with regards to matters of race and alleged Republican voter fraud (though she is certainly not above being racially insensitive towards others, and has remained conspicuously silent regarding the many lawsuits filed against former Obama employer ACORN for voter fraud in at least 13 states). Despite her frequent and embarrassing displays of righteous indignation, she has been investigated by the House Ethics Committee enough times to make John Gotti blush. More information is available here and here.

That's enough to establish a consistent pattern of embarrassing behavior for the time being. Now on to the main event, an encore performance of her speech "gradulating" the "Florida Gatas" for their "gusty" play and their "BS-BCS" title in football. Now enhanced with subtitles. If you are in a silly mood, enjoy! If you are not, have some Ibuprofen ready. This is going to be painful to watch!

Danville, VA TEA Party Leader Asks Attorney General To Investigate Use Of State Police And County Sheriff's Deputies To Harass Perriello Critics

2009-07-22T11:57:00.000-07:00

Link

The Perriello described above is Tom Perriello, the recently-elected Democrat U.S. Congressman from Virginia's 5th Congressional District and a very ardent supporter of Obama and his health care plan (which now includes key provisions of the pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act). The above link details the extent of the intimidation tactics Danville TEA Party leaders suspect Perriello of having engaged in, prompting the query to the state Attorney General's office.

Support for the Democrats' socialized health care plan is beginning to drop like a lead weight, and Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership are desperate to ram the bill through Congress - with minimal scrutiny - before that support evaporates altogether. Whether or not this desperation entails using local law enforcement to intimidate vocal opponents of Obamacare is, in my humble opinion, a matter worth investigating. It is certainly more worthy of investigation than the accusations of ethics violations leveled at soon-to-be former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who has been cleared of 19 such accusations so far with no shred of evidence of wrongdoing uncovered to date; and she now stands to be acquitted of a 20th impending charge, which like the nineteen before it is being investigated well, well beyond reasonable doubt at taxpayer expense).

This case drew my attention for another reason. Tom Perriello is a long-time "Catholic" dissident agitator, and yet another of the driving forces behind the twin-headed apostate entity/leftist front group that is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United (which campaigned quite vigorously on Perriello's behalf during the 2008 election cycle). It should be noted that in his brief time in office, Perriello has amassed a 0% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. He voted in favor of public funding for abortions in the District of Columbia (H.R. 3170). He also voted for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), which includes a provision authorizing an "Office for Global Women's Issues," which would use U.S. taxpayer funding for abortions abroad. Though these votes have almost surely put Perriello in the good graces of NARAL, that pro-abortion entity has yet to compile pro-abortion ratings for this Congress.

This shows, yet again, that those who try to argue that Obama's agenda is in line with Catholic doctrine are far more willing to compromise the doctrinal integrity of latter in order to preserve the ideological purity of the former. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

FOCA Never Went Away, Obama Is Just Trying To Pass It Under The Table With The Rest Of His Agenda

2009-07-21T08:35:00.001-07:00

Link

There is no nice way to put it: the abortion agenda is a demonic one. Those who advocate it serve the forces of darkness, whether they realize it or not. And as with any other action instigated by or (unwittingly) on behalf of the forces of darkness, those who initiate the action scurry like cockroaches the moment light is shed on their actions.

I would hope that by now people have become painfully aware of just how brazenly dishonest Obama was in claiming that he would run "the most transparent administration in our nation's history." Shed a spotlight on any aspect of the Obama agenda, and there are bound to be more than a few cockroaches ready to scatter. Only this time, those cockroaches seek to do grave and irreparable harm to the cause of preserving innocent, unborn life.

Shed EVERY spotlight you can on the massive financial and moral disaster that is the proposed "Obamacare" bill. Popular support for this is fast beginning to wane, but the sad reality is that no amount of popular opposition can change the fact that Obama has a majority in both Houses of Congress. Generalized opposition is not enough. Call, write, or fax your Senators and Congressman to vote against this abomination. They have to be made vividly aware of the political consequences of supporting this legislation. Calling attention to the above link is a good first step. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Hey There Obama (Drink The Kool Aid)

2009-07-20T07:34:00.000-07:00

OK, this video was created by a 16 year old and is starting to do the rounds on the blogosphere and on Facebook. It's too hilarious not to post. Enjoy!

Great Prolife Witness

2009-07-19T17:45:00.000-07:00

As reported by The Catholic Key blog. An amazing read about the impact of children in our lives - no matter how long they grace us with their presence. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

My Take On The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy

2009-07-17T07:02:00.000-07:00

When stories first began to break in October 2008 about a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by a former Hillary Clinton supporter questioning Obama's citizenship and asking him to provide an original copy of his birth certificate, I paid it little mind.

When similar lawsuits popped up in a dozen other states in the days leading up to and following the 2008 election, I started to take a casual interest in the affair. Still, I did not expect much to come of it.

When I made a passing reference to the controversy while blogging on the night of the election and promptly received the first negative comment in the then five month history of my blog, I was amused.

When I saw how the Obama campaign - and later the Obama administration - responded to the brewing controversy, and saw how fanatically devoted Obama supporters were to discouraging inquiries into the circumstances of Obama's birth (and shouting down the inquiries that did arise), I started to seriously wonder if something was amiss.

When I repeatedly commented about the difference between a long-form birth certificate - such as this 1963 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth which lists the hospital where the birth took place and the name of the attending physician - and the short form Certification of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign (which does not list the hospital of birth or the name of the attending physician), only to be answered by Obama supporters who invariably ignored the distinction and sent me links to either Obama's FightTheSmears.com website (since taken down) or the FactCheck.org article that supposedly dispels the rumor (without adequately addressing the distinction made above), I began to realize that the Obama camp really, really wanted this issue to go away.

Any parent with a shred of common sense knows the telltale signs that their child is hiding something, even if the parent does not necessarily know what is being hidden. Any parent with a shred of common sense also knows when their child is making a partial concession to a demand for the truth - by revealing non-incriminating or partially incriminating information - in the hopes that the parent will not inquire into the matter any further.

The fact is, I did not take the birth certificate controversy seriously until I saw the lengths the Obama administration had gone to to avoid releasing the long form birth certificate which lists the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician. The Obama camp contested the original Pennsylvania lawsuit, and continues to actively fight the myriad of lawsuits that have arisen in other states asking for the same information. And recently, an Army Reserve Major by the name of Stefan Frederick Cook filed a lawsuit contesting his deployment orders to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama lacks the standing to issue such an order because he has never provided incontrovertible proof of his U.S. citizenship. The day before the date set for the case to go court (July 16th), Major Cook's deployment orders were mysteriously canceled without any explanation being offered for such a highly irregular action. When it became clear that Major Cook and his attorney were going to press on with the lawsuit, the Department of Defense pressured Major Cook's private employer to fire him (the employer confirmed that the pressure came from the Department of Defense). The lawsuit has since been dismissed on the grounds that the original reason for the lawsuit - Major Cook's imminent deployment - was no longer at issue.

I want to be clear about something, for the sake of anyone who decides to draw attention away from the main point of this blog post by starting a comment thread with a tit-for-tat breakdown of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii and what is or is not Hawaii law. My contention with this controversy boils down to one point, and one point only: Obama can make this entire controversy go away by producing an original copy of the long form birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name of the attending physician who delivered baby Barack. Not the Certification of Live Birth document that has been circulating for nearly two years and which lacks the name of the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician who delivered him, but the actual long form Certificate of Live Birth. If he produces this document, and it proves he was born in Hawaii, then I will be satisfied and let the matter rest. Until he produces this document, and stops wasting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars resisting all efforts to publicly disclose this document, I will question what Barack Hussein Obama II and those serving in his administration have to hide. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Obama's Science Czar: Further Proof Of The Relationship Between The Environmentalist Lobby And The Population Control Movement

2009-07-15T09:36:00.000-07:00

Link, courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com. Hat tip to my brother.

I cringe every time legislation related to "environmental concerns" is proposed under a pro-abortion regime. Always check the fine print of such legislation, because it's bound to include provisions that threaten the sanctity of human life. To those who think there is no connection: consider yourself warned. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

My Verdict

2009-07-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

It is my judgment that Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court would be an assault on American jurisprudence. I expect that my background as a wise Latino conservative will help me make a better determination on this matter than a bunch of white liberals who lack the richness of my experience.

More Than 10,000 Illinois Prisoners Face Early Release To Alleviate State Budget

2009-07-09T10:36:00.000-07:00

Link

In unrelated news, Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley has announced plans to stimulate job growth in his city by hiring 10,000 new employees within his administration...

Cardinal John Henry Newman To Be Beatified

2009-07-04T08:13:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Whispers In The Loggia.

I hope that on the happy occasion of Newman's beatification, the multitude of Newman Clubs on college campuses around the country will recall the Cardinal's evangelical zeal and mirror that zeal in their activities, rather than remain the over-glorified social networking organizations that so many of them have sadly become. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Happy 4th Of July!

2009-07-04T08:02:00.000-07:00

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

Over the last few posts, I have alluded to America being far from perfect, and far from being the salvation of mankind. That said, this country has been a powerful force for good for more than 2 centuries, even if the men tasked with running this country have been far from perfect. The American experiment is a thing worth preserving, if only for as long as God allows. On this day, let us remember the principles upon which this country was founded, and recall the heroic sacrifice of the countless men and women who gave their lives to preserve those principles. Let us do what we can to honor their sacrifice, and to preserve the principles - so beautifully outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution - for which they bled. God bless America!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Al Franken Declared Winner Of Minnesota Senate Race, Democrats Now Have Filibuster-Proof Majority In The Senate: How Will Americans Respond?

2009-07-01T08:40:00.000-07:00

The worst-case scenario of the 2008 election has now come to pass. God help us all. I say that as a prayer, and not as a lamentation.

There is every reason to cry foul about the election results in Minnesota, where incumbent Republican Norm Coleman led after the initial counting of ballots by more than 700 votes, only to see that lead evaporate as new votes were "discovered" all over the state, with a highly disproportionate (some would say statistically impossible) number of those votes favoring Franken. The suspicious recount and horribly bungled subsequent canvassing process were chronicled in a great National Review article by Powerline's Scott Johnson.

The election results aside, we now have to face the dire consequences. In a blog post dated October 6, 2008, I warned of the following potential consequences of an Obama White House, a Nancy Pelosi-led House of Representatives, and a Harry Reid-led, filibuster-proof Senate:

"- All abortion restrictions will be overturned courtesy of the demonically misnamed "Freedom of Choice Act"

- Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and possibly even David Souter could retire within those two years, leaving Obama to name their replacements, who are sure to get sped through the Senate with little to no vetting, costing the pro-life movement what is likely to be the only opportunity to achieve a pro-life Supreme Court majority for the next generation.

- It is very likely that an effort to codify gay marriage into federal law will be attempted, and the next two years would be the best chance for such a codification to succeed.

- Embryonic stem cell research will receive massive federal funding, ensuring that this practice will continue well beyond our lifetimes.

- There is a good chance that Obama and Congress will attempt to pass numerous pieces of subversive legislation of the sort that will make it easier for groups like ACORN (which Obama worked for during his community organizing days, and whose members he helped train in the very tactics that have gotten many of them indicted for voter fraud in 7 states) to act in secrecy and with relative impunity, paving the way for massive voter fraud in future elections which will lead to a built-in handicap working against Republicans and conservative initiatives at the ballot box.

- Taxes. Taxes. Taxes. Did I forget to mention the possibility of taxes? Any financial crisis we think we might be facing today will pale in comparison to what is sure to follow if jobs are lost courtesy of over-taxation of businesses, if gas prices shoot up due to newly-imposed drilling bans, and if the disastrous subsidies for ethanol-based fuel continue to drive food prices through the roof.

- Government oversight over private enterprise will grow, as will government oversight of first amendment rights. Can you imagine Democrats having no obstacle to passing laws that would make it possible for Catholic priests to get arrested as accessories if they preach against homosexuality during Mass and one of that priest's parishioners subsequently commits any act perceived as criminal or discriminatory against someone they may or may not have known to be homosexual? When government imposes itself in any area of private life, history has shown that it is not so easily pushed out again.

- The abominable "Fairness Doctrine" - designed specifically to drive conservative talk radio (the one media outlet liberals don't have a monopoly on apart from the Internet) out of business - is sure to be revisited and snuck through Congress with as little fanfare as possible."

Some of the things described above - including Souter's retirement, massive tax increases, increasing government oversight of private industry, and the beginnings of federal attempts to suppress ideological dissent - have already come to pass (and as expected, Democrats are trying to speed Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor through the confirmation process with minimal scrutiny), and these things have happened without the assurance of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority as everyone waited for the Minnesota shenanigans to play out. Now, with the filibuster-proof majority assured, the Democrats still have 16 months before the next mid-term congressional election - to say nothing of the additional two month period between the elections themselves and the swearing in of the newly-elected - in which time they can push through the rest of the above-mentioned agenda (and much else besides) with minimal Republican resistance.

Only one obstacle remains to the imminent attempt to run roughshod over our civil liberties, and that is the voice of the would-be downtrodden: namely, we the American people. As a general rule, politicians are set in their political agenda, and rarely listen to their constituents once the votes have been tallied and they have been assured of election (or re-election, as the case may be). However, public outcry very nearly derailed HR 2454 (the disastrous cap and trade legislation) in the House (the margin of passage being only 7 votes), and stands a good chance of derailing the legislation in the Senate - even with a filibuster-proof Democrat majority. Public pressure is also the only hope we now have of derailing the passage of the financially catastrophic "Obamacare" health care proposal, as well as forestalling the inevitable attempts at gun control. Politicians tend ignore isolated outcries from constituents whose opinions differ from their own. However, they find it a great deal more difficult to ignore massive public outcries, especially these days if said politicians face re-election in 2010.

Congressmen often have the luxury of relative anonymity when casting their votes. We know that the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration in U.S. history" is not going to go out of its way to explain the consequences of the legislation it favors, so it falls to us to exhort our Senators and Representatives to familiarize themselves with the legislation for which they are casting a vote - and to hold them accountable for running afoul of the American people when they fail to act in our best interests. Public exposure of those who vote in favor of disastrous legislation or against beneficial legislation is warranted. That, however, is not possible unless we the people bother to familiarize ourselves with the mechanisms of government and the wording and practical applications of the legislation that passes through the halls of Congress.

Which means, folks, that we cannot continue to remain in ignorant bliss of what our government is doing. Ignorant voters tend to elect the most capable con artists to high office, and then tend to turn a blind eye to the mischief such con artists perpetrate. If we truly care about this American experiment, that has to stop. The right to vote carries with it a grave moral responsibility. Not only do we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the candidates and amendments that appear on our ballots, we also have an obligation to ensure that our elected officials remain on good behavior and that the amendments we vote into law are properly enacted. To do otherwise, and to remain ignorant of what we enable at the ballot box, is to ensure the advent of tyranny.

We are now at a crossroads. We must decide if the American experiment is worth saving. If we can't be bothered to inform ourselves about the agenda of the people now tasked with perpetuating that experiment, and to hold them accountable to us, we may soon wake up to the realization that the vision of our Founding Fathers has passed us by. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

This Is Just Getting Pathetic

2009-06-29T11:46:00.000-07:00

On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to pass House Resolution 2454 (the so-called "clean energy" or "climate change" bill, better known as "cap and trade") by a 219-212 vote, with 44 Democrats voting against it and 8 Republicans voting in favor of it (thus providing the highly unfortunate margin of passage). The Senate is likely to address the bill in September after the summer recess (the most eagerly awaited congressional recess in American history), and there is considerable doubt as to whether or not the bill will pass the Senate.

Folks, I can't tell you how disastrous this legislation would be, both from an economic and a moral standpoint. This bill would essentially empower the government to regulate our energy expenditures. It would cause energy costs to skyrocket, as Obama himself admitted in the following clip:

House Minority Leader John Boehner spent nearly an hour addressing this legislative travesty before the Friday vote, countering Nancy Pelosi's blatantly dishonest claim that this legislation would create more jobs. Among the things Boehner addressed was an amendment to the bill that would require home owners to subject their homes to a government-mandated environmental inspection which they are required to pass before the government will allow them to sell their homes. Amendments like these are scattered throughout the bill, and are a bald-faced attempt to restrict private property rights.

As to the issue of jobs, the bill would uphold the ban on domestic drilling, and would pave the way for further dependence on foreign oil. The list goes on and on. And as if we needed any further proof of how disastrous this legislation would be, there is one further fairly dependable gauge to go by: the leftist political front group and fraudulently-named Catholics United supports it. That alone should be enough to set off warning bells in the heads of any God-fearing, freedom-loving human being.

The financial consequences of a move towards a totalitarian socialism aside, we cannot overlook the frightening possibilities of what a newly-empowered, Obama-led government might do in the area of population control in the name of "saving the earth." China's forced abortion policy is largely the result of that barbaric regime trying to regulate the consumption of resources. What's to stop Obama - a demonically devoted opponent of the pro-life cause - from deciding that America's population needs to be capped at a certain level in order to preserve this nation's resources (many of which are ironically closed to us thanks to the provisions of this cap-and-trade legislation?). This is a dirty little secret of the environmental movement. All of the major environmental lobbyists in Washington - including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace - all hold official stances in favor of regulating population growth, ostensibly because the earth can only sustain so many people at one time (which might be true, though we are nowhere near that threshold and are not likely to reach it any time in the foreseeable future). This is not, as some have claimed, the views of only a small segment of the environmental movement. It is part of the lobby's agenda. And this cap and trade bill would be a step towards the fulfillment of that agenda.

It is highly imperative that our Senators be made aware of our displeasure with this legislative abomination. Let your Senators know that if and when they address this come September, their stance on this bill will go a long way towards determining their future electoral prospects. As my brother pointed out in a recent blog post, if the cap and trade legislation becomes law, Friday, June 26th, 2009 may well be the day that history regards as the day the American experiment failed. Brothers and sisters in Christ, America is not the great salvation of mankind, but among the world powers it is the closest thing to an ally that the forces of good have. Let us then preserve this experiment for as long as we can. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Amnesty International Demands No Amnesty For The Unborn

2009-06-25T19:58:00.000-07:00

A great read from Piero A. Tozzi of the Catholic Human Rights and Family Institute (C-FAM) regarding Amnesty International's harsh criticism of the nation of Poland for its failure to have more liberalized abortion laws. And so another so-called "human rights" group proves itself fraudulent.

For years, Amnesty International studiously avoided taking a stance on the abortion issue while promoting social justice causes. The organization has long been known to have left-leaning political sympathies, but always wanted to maintain some measure of support from Christian organizations on commonly-held human rights issues by not running afoul of them on the abortion issue. As such, it served as a magnet for individuals who were adamantly opposed to war and capital punishment but who were ambivalent when it came to the rights of the unborn, and refused to divulge their true opinions on the abortion issue out of a desire to maintain an air of legitimacy in pro-life circles (Sr. Helen Prejean being a very prominent example, though whether or not she ever enjoyed legitimacy within the pro-life community is highly debatable).

That time has now passed, and Amnesty International has joined the long line of self-proclaimed "human rights" organizations with clear anti-life and anti-Christian sympathies. And, as this article once again shows, when it comes to enemies of the pro-life position, abortion is not merely a matter of choice. Either you cave in and support abortion without restrictions, or you are branded an opponent of human rights and become part of the only entity aside from Israel that the U.N. vigorously condemns with any measure of regularity. Go figure.

I've known a great many good pro-life people over the years who have supported Amnesty International precisely because they refused to come out in favor of abortion. If you know of any people who continue to give such support, please send the above article to them so they can see that Amnesty International has voluntarily removed itself from the category of organizations deserving of our support, and has done so with extreme prejudice. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Obama Betrays Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy In Father's Day Reflections

2009-06-23T21:44:00.001-07:00

I don't know where to begin with this one. Practically everything Obama says in his Father's Day message is contradicted by his policy stances.

You can click here for Obama's full statement in Parade.com. However, two excerpts immediately stand out as bearing explanation in light of how they square (or rather, fail to square) with Obama's policy decisions.

Obama writes: "That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most."

Interesting. Is President Obama admitting that life begins at conception? When did that determination suddenly fall within his pay grade? Is it within a President's pay grade? Is a President qualified to determine when life begins? Because it seems to me that this President didn't exactly trust the judgment of his predecessor on the issue, having made it a priority to reverse said predecessor's abortion-related policies.

Obama speaks about the importance of being there for a child and being man enough to raise the child. Yet his every policy position regarding the unborn essentially regards a "good father" as one that pays to have the child destroyed by an abortionist. Obama says it takes courage to raise a child, but it is hard to muster such courage when there is no child to raise, which is an unfortunate side effect of choosing to kill a child rather than raise it - with Obama's full blessing, of course.

And if the child was targeted for abortion but manages to be born alive anyway, there's no need for paternal courage in that case either. The President absolves you of any parental responsibility towards such a child. As far as Obama is concerned, you can let the doctor lock the child in a storage closet to die alone and unattended. Unlike Obama, you don't even need to be "present."

Obama speaks of men doing the difficult and thankless tasks with regards to their children, and to being there when the children struggle and need them most. Yet there is no more difficult and thankless aspect to fatherhood than to see the mother of your child through her pregnancy, and the baby's greatest struggle is to survive the period of time when uncaring judicial activists unilaterally declared - wisely, in Obama's view - that it was legal to kill it. It is during this uncertain time that a child needs the love of a mother and a father most. Yet despite Obama's statements in Parade.com, he has dedicated himself during his entire political career to ensuring that you don't have to worry about being a father during this time. No, in Obama's professional judgment, the child needs you most when neither judicial activists nor cold-hearted legislators (among whom can be counted a certain former state senator in Illinois) can legally justify its murder any longer. When a baby not previously targeted for abortion is fully delivered and has had its umbilical chord cut, then and only then does Obama say that you better be a dad. You see, at that point the "stop telling me what to do with my body!" fallacy so often used as a justification for abortion can no longer be logically sustained by even the most illogical minds, and Obama no longer risks incurring Planned Parenthood's or NOW's wrath. Until that point, however...baby, schmaby. You can jab a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, for all he cares.

Obama writes: "We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets."

Careful, Mr. President, you risk alienating one of your most devoted voting blocs.

Some questions, Mr. President:
- If we are our children's first and best teachers, why not speak out in support of homeschooling? After all, if the first and best teachers can be legally certified to educate a child, why should the child still be forced to go to a public school? Why go with an inferior educator when the best teacher is already available and home?

- Why turn a blind eye to legislation that prevents parents from pulling children out of the classroom when sex education is being taught? Why not trust parents, as the first and best teachers, to teach their children more effectively about the birds and the bees than some government-funded, condom-bearing drone?

- And if you are truly serious about the importance of a father in a child's life, why give a man like Kevin Jennings a post in the Department of Education? The man pushes a radical homosexual agenda, part of which is forcing society to accept homosexual unions as being on par with heterosexual marriage. He also pushes for compulsory extension of adoption services to homosexual couples (probably to offset the fact that homosexual unions cannot produce children naturally, despite this being one of the chief functions of those heterosexual marriages that homosexual unions are supposedly on par with). This would necessarily include allowing lesbian couples to adopt, and that scenario would preclude the presence of a father in the adopted child's life. Did you think through the consequences of this incredibly poor appointment? Or are you simply telling those leery of your moral agenda what you think they want to hear?

You see, Obama talks a good talk. He even gave an infamous "Just Words?" speech to deflect criticism of the fact that much of what he says is just words. I guess you can add this recent exercise in hypocrisy to that list.

Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. You can only drown out your actions for so long before people start to recognize the vapid nature of your empty rhetoric. So either stop insulting our intelligence or make sure your actions don't completely contradict that stream of eloquent diction that scrolls through your teleprompter. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

While I Was Sleeping...

2009-06-20T23:07:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the delays in posting. Truth is, I just got caught up in other things. Not especially important things, I'm afraid. But I guess we all go through phases where we are easily diverted.

Nevertheless, it has been an eventful few weeks in the world. The events in Iran have especially dominated the news of late. While I express my deepest sympathies and solidarity with the brave Iranians protesting the results of an obviously rigged election, I marvel that people can express shock at the fact that the election was, in fact, rigged. Expressing shock at a fraudulent display of democracy by a murderous dictatorial regime is akin to expressing shock at Keith Olbermann for making a fool of himself. You expect the snake to bite: it's inherent to its nature. As the old adage goes: "Never trust a snake." And while this world has more than its fair share of snakes - and more than its fair share of them in positions of power - few are more adept at crawling on their bellies than Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah Khameini.

On the domestic front, Barack Obama continues to name left fringe crazies to high ranking positions within his administration. Two recent examples especially stand out in this regard. On the education front, he has very quietly nominated militant gay activist Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings has a long track record of trying to push a sexually deviant agenda through the public school system, and is a vocal advocate of homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. More on the nomination - and Obama's general use of the press to divert attention away from his prolific nomination of radical leftists to key government posts - can be found in this great Townhall piece by Kevin McCullough.

The second nomination that caught my eye has been the subject of a rather humorous subplot in the past few weeks. Alexia Kelley, who is one of the core members of the apostate left wing front group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed by Obama as Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (Kelley, by the way, is the fourth person associated with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United to be appointed by Obama to a government post, and all 4 appointments are widely recognized as political payback for help during Obama's presidential campaign. Yet Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United laughably continue to hold themselves out as nonpartisan entities). The humor arises from the fact that shortly after the appointment was made, John O'Brien, successor to the semi-retired and hardly lamented Frances Kissling as head of the militantly pro-abortion and bitterly anti-Catholic group Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice. Why these groups think that name changes will rehabilitate their images is really quite beyond me) issued a statement calling the appointment a "defeat for reason and logic" on the grounds that Alexia Kelley was allegedly pro-life. This prompted a response from James Salt of Catholics United accusing Catholics for Choice of "joining the far right" in launching vicious unfounded smears against Kelley (the statement was posted on the Catholics United website, but has since been removed), after which Kissling herself joined the fray. Jack Smith wrote an excellent piece covering Kissling's confused response on The Catholic Key blog.

Two things strike me as humorous in this entire exchange. First is the mistaken notion that Alexia Kelley - or anyone else involved with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United - holds pro-life views. The two entities hold themselves out as pro-life, but consistently support pro-abortion politicians. Not only that, they quite viciously attack pro-life politicians who dare oppose their candidates and office-holders of choice. They pay a great deal of lip service to supporting politicians who "work to reduce the number of abortions," yet studiously avoid supporting a single politician who advocates the one action guaranteed to reduce the number of abortions: namely, making abortion illegal.

The second thing is this: there is no unity in heresy or apostasy. Unity comes only through adherence to the truth. Dissenting groups tend to fall under large umbrella organizations, and the best-known dissenters tend to be involved in multiple groups. There is so much overlap that, generally speaking, one dissident organization is indistinguishable from another. But having so many different group names creates the impression that the movement of dissent is far bigger than it really is. The virtually identical natures of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United are but one example. In that sense, such groups are rightly considered unified, and they certainly do organize together in most of their endeavors to create the illusion of larger numbers for their projects.

However, each dissident group - while generally supportive of the overall agenda of dismantling the hierarchical nature of the Church and replacing it with a faux democracy steeped in the values of moral relativism - tends to embrace one or two pet causes, whether it be promoting abortion, contraception, the acceptance of homosexual behavior, liberation theology, etc. It happens in rare occasions that one or more of those causes come into direct conflict, and that is what happened here. Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United promotes itself as pro-life in order to gain support among poorly informed but well-meaning Catholics for its aggressive pursuit of a socialist form of government. In doing this, they ran afoul of Catholics for (a Free) Choice, which has in the past compared the Vatican to the Taliban for its supposed oppression of women because of its pro-life positions (and yes, they made this comparison with a straight face, which should give you some insight as to just how disturbingly demonic the ideology of this group truly is). When Catholics for (a Free) Choice hears anyone identify themselves as pro-life, they don't check to verify the authenticity of the claim. They instead fly into full-blown panic mode at the prospect that such individuals will save the life of even one unborn child with their policy decisions. And so a dishonest pretension by Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United led to an amusing side show that left egg on the faces of two different dissident factions.

One other thing I've noticed is just how selective Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United is in its criticisms. Catholics for (a Free) Choice is at least consistent in that it will bash anyone who expresses the slightest concern for the plight of the unborn, however sick and disturbing such an approach may be. Catholics United, on the other hand, claims to champion the cause of peace and justice, but only ever seems to criticize the pro-life movement, those who criticize Barack Obama, and those who dare criticize any of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United's core members. They also made it a point to "lament" the murder of Dr. George Tiller, but it seems they only did this as an excuse to take a pot shot at the pro-life movement. Yet when it comes to things like speaking out in support of the oppressed people in Iran, denouncing the slave trade in the Sudan, or addressing human rights abuses in China, all you hear are crickets chirping. I guess Obama needs to address those issues first, so Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United can receive their talking points from him - or rather, his teleprompter.

Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which also happened since my last blog post, I will share two statements I issued on my Facebook page concerning the incident. Besides expressing my utter disgust with how the Obama administration has chosen to use this tragedy as a means of marginalizing the pro-life movement, I will let these two statements reflect my thoughts on the matter until new developments arise:

"George Tiller's murder was certainly beyond the pale, but so is using that murder as an excuse to score cheap political points at the pro-life movement's expense."

"The murder of George Tiller was an atrocity. It was morally unjustifiable, and I will have words with anyone who says otherwise. But let no one dare insult my intelligence by pretending he is a martyr for humanitarian causes. There are approximately 60,000 reasons why I vehemently beg to differ."

Lastly, to those of you who have sent me e-mails regarding my blog, I'd like to say thank you. Even though I have not had the chance to reply to each of you individually, just know that your comments are appreciated, and I do plan to address some of the issues raised in your e-mails. And no, I am not on Twitter, and don't plan to be at this time, though that might change at a later date. Please keep the feedback coming. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Fruits Of The Watering Down Of The Catholic Faith At Catholic Universities In The Name Of "Tolerance" and "Dialogue"...

2009-06-04T22:06:00.000-07:00

...speak for themselves.

Congratulations. Fr. Jenkins. It looks like you found the common moral ground you so desperately sought with Obama.

State of Connecticut Resumes Efforts To Deny First Amendment Rights To Catholics

2009-06-03T11:05:00.001-07:00

Great article by Drew Zahn posted on World Net Daily regarding the state of Connecticut's attempts to portray the Catholic Church's right to peacefully assemble as a violation of state lobbying laws. It appears that the state government will not soon abandon its war on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.

For some further background on this subject, please read my previous post on the subject.

In trying to destroy the moral fiber of a country by promoting a culture of death and attacking the institution of marriage, a necessary first step is to drown out the voices of those who would call attention to such attempts. Connecticut would make Saul Alinsky proud. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Lest I Forget Two Important Birthdays...

2009-05-29T22:57:00.001-07:00

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

Regarding the Nature of Catholic Truth

2009-05-29T22:33:00.000-07:00

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…

Time To Fire Giovanni Maria Vian As Editor Of L'Osservatore Romano

2009-05-28T20:48:00.000-07:00

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

Obama Appoints Hispanic Catholic Theologian Miguel Diaz as Ambassador to the Vatican, Questions of Orthodoxy Remain

2009-05-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

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...

Tiananmen Square 20 Years Later

2009-05-27T14:26:00.000-07:00

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

Remember When I Said That The Thought Of Obama Naming People To The Supreme Court Made Me Cringe?

2009-05-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

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

Dissecting The Word "Homophobia" And Its Misappropriations

2009-05-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

Seinfeldian Catholicism

2009-05-21T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

EWTN: Raymond Arroyo to talk to Bishop D'Arcy about the Notre Dame/President Obama Controversy

2009-05-20T20:02:00.000-07:00

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.

The Monday Project - Sending Pro-Life Cards To Notre Dame

2009-05-19T14:20:00.000-07:00

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

Archbishop Chaput Speaks About The Notre Dame Scandal

2009-05-19T12:18:00.000-07:00

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."

Some Thoughts About Yesterday's Shameful Turn Of Events At Notre Dame

2009-05-18T07:53:00.000-07:00

- 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

The Question Fr. Jenkins Wishes Would Just Go Away...

2009-05-18T07:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Several Protesters, Including Alan Keyes And A Catholic Priest, Arrested At Notre Dame

2009-05-16T10:18:00.000-07:00

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

Barack Obama Furthers The Cause Of Sexual Dysfunctionality, Cuts All Funding For Abstinence-Only Education

2009-05-08T16:39:00.000-07:00

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

Fr. John Corapi Issues Statement Regarding Notre Dame Commencement Scandal

2009-05-08T09:23:00.001-07:00

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"

New Probe Shows Obama's Funding UNFPA Supports Kidnapping Babies, Abortion

2009-05-07T18:54:00.000-07:00

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...

Well-Known Catholic Artist To Discuss A Return To Beauty On "EWTN Live"

2009-05-07T08:13:00.000-07:00

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."

Fr. Corapi Is On The Road Again

2009-05-06T20:41:00.000-07:00

Link

And not a moment too soon. Welcome back, Father. Your presence has been sorely missed...

Paul Harvey On Gun Control

2009-05-06T13:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Mr. Terry, There Is A Right Way To Go About Engaging In Pro-Life Activism...

2009-05-01T20:35:00.001-07:00

...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.

A Profile In Moral Courage: Mary Ann Glendon Refuses Notre Dame's Laetare Medal

2009-04-27T15:49:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter to Fr. Jenkins from Mary Ann Glendon - professor of law at Harvard Law school, bioethics consultant to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, who in December 2008 was announced as the recipient of Notre Laetare Medal during the 2009 commencement exercises - to Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. She is an avid pro-life activist and was the lone bright spot in the entire Barack Obama commencement scandal. Due to concerns over the university's presentation of her appearance as a justification for the Obama invitation, she has decided to decline the honor and cancel her appearance at the Notre Dame commencement.

It is a scandal in its own right that the arrogance and obstinacy of Fr. Jenkins and the Notre Dame administration has forced a worthy honoree to decline the honor given to her. However, as the letter will show, Mary Ann Glendon puts her Catholic faith and her commitment to the truth ahead of prestige. The other major players in this whole sorry episode could stand to learn from her very Catholic example.

God bless you, Professor Glendon. May others have the moral courage to follow your example, and may that example serve as a stark reminder that the Church exists to help us attain a treasure that is not of this earth. Any goal short of attaining that treasure - and leading others to that treasure - is not a goal inspired by God.

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33347

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Musings On Stem Cell Research, Artificial Fertility, And Artificial Contraception

2009-04-24T17:42:00.001-07:00

As I begin writing this, I am listening to one of my old Steubenville professors, Dr. Patrick Lee, talk to Raymond Arroyo on EWTN's The World Over. The topic of discussion deals, among other things, with new Obama administration guidelines concerning embryonic stem cell research. In keeping with his anti-Catholic moral views, one of Barack Obama's first executive orders as President was to overturn George W. Bush's ban of government funding for researching new lines of embryonic stem cells, which are acquired through a variety of ways, including the purchase of eggs from women (to fertilize in a lab) and the acquisition of "leftover" fertilized eggs that resulted from in vitro fertilization and other artificial fertility methods.

Something Raymond Arroyo joked about in passing was the Obama administration's tendency to release to the public details about morally controversial administration decisions on Friday evenings and how this always results in Arroyo having all the latest news during the Friday night broadcasts of The World Over. Of course, "the most transparent administration in U.S. history" hardly does this to accommodate EWTN. The timing is usually in anticipation of the weekend news cycle, when such stories are most likely to pass unnoticed (and during which time they can be more easily buried by an obliging media). I thought I'd pass that detail along to those who like to keep up with the President's morally dubious policies, as it does indeed seem that Friday evenings are the time to learn about them.

It defies all logic for researchers to continue to insist on pursuing embryonic stem cell research as a way of curing diseases. To date, not one single cure has ever been derived from such research, which always requires the destruction of the embryo involved (and thus the destruction of a human life), whereas dozens of cures have been derived from the much more fruitful - and much more morally sound - adult line of stem cell research. And it cannot be argued that lack of progress in embryonic stem cell research can be blamed on Bush, as a) he made the unfortunate decision to allow government funding of lines of embryonic stem cell research already in existence at the time of his announcement in 2001, and b) Bush's funding ban applied to government funds only, and not to private funding, which is how most scientific breakthroughs are achieved. And make no mistake about it: private funds continued to be poured into what many scientists assured us was the most promising line of medical research for the cures of many horrible diseases. However, as Bush's term progressed, those private lines of funding slowly began to dry up, which was indicative of the fact that the research was not bearing any worthwhile fruit for investors.

It begs the question, then, of why the culture of death seems so hell-bent on pursuing stem cell research that destroys human life when a non-lethal and much more fruitful method of research (with adult stem cells) is readily available and constantly in need of funding?

Many scientists make the claim that embryonic stem cells are non-differentiated, meaning that in the embryonic phase these cells have not yet grown into the specialized cells that characterized the various organs and vital systems of the human body. As such, these embryonic stem cells are supposed to contain more "potential" for a wider variety of cures, whereas adult stem cells are already specialized and are therefore limited in the types of afflictions they can help cure. This is a disturbing line of thought, as it completely disregards the humanity of the embryo and is born of a "Brave New World" mentality. Far too many scientists are unconcerned with the ethical ramifications of their work, and to paraphrase the late Michael Crichton's fictional mathematician Ian Malcolm, such scientists spend so much time wondering if they can do something that they rarely if ever stop to think about whether or not they should.

While embryonic stem cells are a more unpredictable and less known commodity - and thus a more "appealing" subject of research for ethically oblivious scientists - adult stem cells are readily more available, as they can be obtained from living human beings. Our bodies constantly create these cells, providing a virtually unlimited supply. Embryonic stem cells, of course, destroy their source, making the need for new embryos constant. One has to be completely ignorant of the humanity of these embryos - or else truly intending to do evil - to go to great lengths to harvest mass quantities of them when adult stem cells can be so easily obtained.

While specific kinds of adult stem cells are more limited in the types of diseases they can cure, the variety of adult stem cells easily covers all fields of medicine. This fact all but negates the "potential" argument that supposedly favors embryonic stem cells. One is thus left to wonder if scientists who clamor for funding for embryonic stem cell research are more concerned with the research itself - the proverbial thrill of discovery - than they are with the practical applications of their research.

Nor can it be overlooked that advocacy of embryonic stem cell research tends to overlap quite nicely with advocacy of the evil of abortion. Now to be fair, there are many who as a policy oppose abortion but support embryonic stem cell research - John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are two very prominent examples - but this is more a testament to their moral confusion than it is to the merits of embryonic stem cell research. If you recognize that life begins at conception, there is no logical basis for you to support embryonic stem cell research (a contradiction John McCain has repeatedly made in public - have I mentioned how unfortunate I think it is that he of all people was chosen to oppose Barack Obama?).

Nor does the argument that "these embryos will never be born, so why not put them to good use serving others?" hold water. That opens up a whole new line of immoral reasoning, whereby individuals will deliberately create embryos that will never be born with the intention of using that very argument to proceed with their destruction for scientific research purposes. This is the harvesting of human beings - plain and simple.

One often-overlooked aspect of the Church's teaching of the sanctity and inviolability of human life deals with the relationship between the gift of life and the gift of human sexuality. The sexual gift serves the twofold purpose of being love giving - and therefore is to be restricted to a man and a woman who have made the public, lifelong commitment and complete gift of self to one another that is sanctified through the sacrament of holy matrimony - as well as life-giving. An important aspect of this teaching is that the conception of new life is reserved to the conjugal act alone.

In view of this teaching, it is no coincidence that the Church opposes artificial contraception, as it is the deliberate suppression of the life giving aspect of the sexual gift and reduces the sexual gift to a mere recreational tool for gratification (need I elaborate on how the secular world has proven this point, with extreme prejudice?).

It also follows that the Church opposes any kind of sexual gratification that exists outside the sexual act, including adultery, fornication, pornography, homosexual acts, and masturbation, as these undermine the love-giving aspect of the sexual gift (again, need I elaborate how these acts lead to a warped view of human sexuality among their practitioners?).

Moreover, it follows that the Church also opposes sexual acts between married couples that result in the individuals involved climaxing outside of the conjugal act. Indeed, such acts have been condemned by the Judeo-Christian tradition since Old Testament times, and even warrants mention in the Bible. They are given the name of coitus interruptus. It is the sin that is committed by Onan in Genesis 38:9-10. This act manifests itself in various ways that need not be described here, but it is important to understand that coitus interruptus is a necessary action in allowing artificial fertility methods to take place. However much people try to justify the "good" that can come about from this, one simply cannot commit evil in order to bring about a good, even if that good happens to be the creation of new life.

The Church teachings previously described have become well-known to Catholics, especially in light of events in the last few decades. What is less known but just as relevant to Catholic teaching on human sexuality and the gift of life is the Church's constant teaching that children are a gift from God, and never a right (as mentioned in a previous post, pregnancy is not a thing that man can fully control or fully separate from sexual activity, despite the dogged determination of many who seek to do just that). In vitro fertilization and other fertility methods are a perversion not only because they result in the conception of children outside the conjugal act - the conception of children being reserved by God for the conjugal act alone - but also because it is an example of man trying to take control of the creation of new life that is properly the domain of God.

The evidence that such actions are contrary to the will of God are legion. Not only are these methods directly linked to the harvesting of embryos for later use in life-destroying research, but they also lead to the practice of selective breeding. More and more, would-be parents are given the options for which kinds of genes they want from donors (in cases where one or the other spouse is incapable of conception) or from the petri dish (as the lab process of fertilizing eggs becomes more advanced, the suppression of certain genes inevitably gains momentum). This leads to a natural erosion of the appreciation of the intrinsic worth of individuals with "less desirable" traits - especially those born with physical and mental disabilities. It is precisely this depreciation of the intrinsic worth of the human person that is the end envisioned by the eugenics movement; and there are no words to describe what an egregious affront this is to the dignity of the human person. Artificial fertility methods are but another tool in realizing the demonic eugenicist ideal envisioned by the likes of Friedrich Nietzche, Margaret Sanger, and Adolf Hitler.

The ramifications of artificial contraception and artificial fertility - along with other artificial perversions of human sexuality, the inviolability of the gift of human life, and the dignity of the human person - lead to extremes even far more ominous than I have described. By understanding how these different issues relate to one another, we gain a much deeper understanding of why the Church opposes them. There are those in the world - many among them unwittingly - who are trying to involuntarily drag us into a reality reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or Ayn Rand's Anthem. There are limits to what science can accomplish as far as perverting the gifts of life and sexuality bestowed upon us by God, but that does not mean that we are not in danger of losing sight of our place relative to God. Let us, then, continue to remember who the real Author of creation is, and abide by the rules He has set forth to keep that creation going. To do otherwise is to lose sight not only of His divinity, but also of our own humanity. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Trustee of the 2009 Cannonball Awards (For Catholic Blogs) Now Accepting Nominations

2009-04-24T13:26:00.000-07:00

This is the first I've heard of them, to be honest. Guess that's a testament to my relative ignorance of the increasingly more massive Catholic blogosphere. However, there are some very entertaining categories in the mix, such as "Best Potpourri of Popery," "Best Hifreakinlarious Blog," and "Best Armchair Theologian Blog," just to name a few. I doubt I'd qualify for anything other than "Most Diligent Blogger For A Readership Of Half A Dozen," but it seems like an entertaining venture.

Anyway, here's the link. Enjoy, and God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

It's Not Just Notre Dame, By The Way: Georgetown University Honors Pro-Abortion VP Joe Biden

2009-04-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

As far as universities with Catholic charters go, Georgetown University has long ranked among the most embarrassing. I made mention of the university's disgraceful treatment of 2003 commencement speaker Francis Cardinal Arinze - a man who should be invited to many, many more commencements - in a previous post. When it comes to orthodoxy, Georgetown's theology department merits little more than a punchline. As with any school, there are bright spots in the university, but they are not to be found within the administration.

The latest stunt by the university? Honoring VP and latae sententiae excommunicate Joe Biden. Only in this case the Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law (don't names like that just make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end?) not only violated the directives of the USCCB, it also acted in formal cooperation with a secular pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage group, Legal Momentum.

I haven't really commented on this one as much as the Notre Dame scandal. This is not because it is any less egregious in its level of outrage, but because I have become so jaded by Georgetown that I expect no better from them; and since Georgetown's reputation has been considerably more tarnished among Catholics than Notre Dame's, there is less potential there for widespread deception of the faithful. That said, this scandal is every bit as meritorious of denunciation.

Amazing that the oldest Catholic university in the United States, founded by Fr. John Carroll, the first Bishop of the United States, could have sunk this low. Yet that is inevitably what happens when one seeks the approval of the princes of this world ahead of the approval of the King of Heaven. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, HLI President and Notre Dame Graduate, Weighs In On The Obama Commencement Scandal

2009-04-24T12:02:00.000-07:00

The wonderful priest and head of the pro-life group Human Life International is bound to have an opinion on his alma mater inviting the best friend Planned Parenthood has ever had in the Oval Office to speak at its commencement ceremonies. This is another very worthwhile read, as Fr. Euteneuer goes beyond criticism of Fr. Jenkins and the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and calls out Fr. Jenkins' superior among the Holy Cross Fathers, Fr. Hugh Cleary, who neglected his moral obligation to call for Fr. Jenkins' resignation as President of Notre Dame and instead issued a non-committal statement reminiscent of Pontius Pilate. The text of Fr. Euteneuer's statement can be found below. Happy reading, and God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Human Life International e-Newsletter
Volume 04, Number 16 | Friday, April 24, 2009
.................................................................................. www.hli.org
Shake Down the Thunder on Notre Dame

"Cheer, cheer for old Notre Dame! Wake up the echoes cheering her name. Send a volley cheer on high; shake down the thunder from the sky. What though the odds be great or small, old Notre Dame will win over all, while her loyal sons go marching onward to victory."
(Notre Dame Fight Song)

I used to sing these words with tremendous zeal while a student at Notre Dame (ND) in the '80s and especially as a member of the ND Glee Club for a year. How proud we were to belt out this most famous of college fight songs and rally the troops for battle on the gridiron - and elsewhere! ND alumni do not need to be reminded how deeply embedded in our hearts this tune and these words are; we only need to be assured that they still mean what they indicate: namely, that Notre Dame's loyal sons are still "marching onward to victory" (of Catholic orthodoxy, that is.)

The decision of Notre Dame President, Fr. John Jenkins, to invite our nation's abortion-promoter-in-chief to speak at the May 17th commencement is such an egregious violation of our loyalty to our alma mater that it's hard to see how these words actually to Notre Dame apply any more. Who wants to "wake up the echoes cheering her name" now? Fr. Jenkins has just shaken down a sort of spiritual thunder on what used to be the country's premier Catholic university, and woe to him and the rest of the ND leadership for their decision to put Notre Dame definitively outside the scope of Catholic orthodoxy. It's worse than that, of course, because Fr. Jenkins and his team have reaffirmed time and again, in the face of massive protests, their commitment to having President Obama speak at graduation and to receiving an honorary doctorate. It just doesn't get more tragic than that.

Let's be honest: all the hand wringing and justification for Fr. Jenkins' decision is just fluff. Despite the unprecedented tour de force of close to fifty US bishops objecting to this travesty, Fr. Jenkins's claim that his decision is "consistent" with the bishops' 2004 directive on speakers at Catholic colleges - simply because Barack Obama is not a Catholic - is, well, absurd on its face. No person in his right mind buys it.

And that's the point - Notre Dame leadership is not "in its right mind" any more. The ones who made or endorsed this decision are not thinking with the mind of the Church let alone the Mind of Christ. This doesn't just apply to Fr. Jenkins either. It also applies to his superior, Fr. Hugh Cleary, who has an obligation to demand Jenkins' immediate resignation from his post to end this scandal but who chose instead to make a sappy, glowing, politically-correct statement which dares call this hurtful fiasco a "teachable moment."

No, Father Cleary - a "teachable moment" would be your removing Fr. Jenkins from office to show the world that the Church really means what she says in calling abortion an "abominable crime." (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 51)

As far as I am concerned, a thunder of judgment has just been shaken down on Notre Dame, its Board of Directors and any faculty, students or alumni who endorse the decision to bring Barack Obama to Notre Dame's campus to sully Our Lady's good name and our deepest loyalties.

Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

As Long As We're On The Subject Of Notre Dame And Fr. Jenkins...

2009-04-22T22:02:00.000-07:00

A group of alumni have finally taken the bold step of withholding donations to the University of Notre Dame until such a time as Fr. John I. Jenkins is removed from the office of President of the university, and are inviting other alumni not only to make the same pledge, but to announce how much they are withholding so the Board of Trustees has a clear idea of the negative financial impact to the university so as long as Fr. Jenkins remains. As I have become a very vocal advocate for Fr. Jenkins' removal, I wholeheartedly support this effort.

You can go to their website by clicking here.

And now, I bid you adieu. I have decided to take up my pillow's invitation. Good night, and God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Bishop D'Arcy Of Fort Wayne-South Bend Issues Correction To Fr. Jenkins' Severely Flawed Justifications For Obama Commencement Invite

2009-04-22T21:44:00.000-07:00

The text of Bishop D'Arcy's response can be found here, courtesy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocesan website.

I must say, I found this statement especially gratifying. I can understand why the Bishop's heart was heavy as he wrote this, but this is one of the finer examples of a pastoral correction I've come across recently. Kudos to His Excellency for faithfully carrying out his duty as a shepherd!

By the way, I thought it would be nice to mention the current headcounts for two petition drives related to this scandal. As of this posting, they are as follows:

Cardinal Newman Society petition (opposing Obama's invitation), of which I am a proud signatory: 331,125

"We Support Notre Dame" petition (supporting Obama's invitation), begun by Catholics United and its affiliates: 34,383

My brothers and sisters, continue to make your voices heard. If you haven't already, please sign the petition opposing the scandal perpetrated by the University of Notre Dame administration. And please continue to give your support to Notre Dame Response (whose efforts to meet with Fr. Jenkins in person to discuss their concerns have thus far been rejected). God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Catholics United Reasserts Primary Allegiance To Caesar, Describes Censorship Of Sacred Catholic Symbols As Mere "Stage Decorating"

2009-04-20T21:53:00.000-07:00

All right, let's take it from the top.

I've previously commented on Catholics United here, here, and here. I trust that by now regular readers of my blog harbor no illusions that Catholics United is anything other than a radically leftist political front group.

The most recent thing to stir them to action involves a recent controversy at Georgetown University, which hosted Barack Obama for an April 14 speech on the economy. Though it is the oldest university in the United States with a Catholic charter, any resemblance between the Hoyas and orthodox Catholicism is purely coincidental, and generally frowned upon by the powers-that-be at Georgetown University. It came as no surprise, therefore, that when Obama requested that the university cover up all non-American symbols on the stage where he was to speak, the university readily agreed, even going so far as to cover up the initials IHS - symbolic of Jesus Christ Himself - per Obama's specifications. Obama apologists have been trying to argue that there was no offense meant to Catholics by this, as Obama requested all non-American symbols be removed from the stage where he spoke. The argument, of course, rings hollow because in a Catholic setting, virtually all symbols are religious and meant to remind those present that Jesus Christ takes a backseat to no man. It is not acceptable, therefore, to suppress religious symbols to accommodate secular authorities, a fact that was almost certainly considered and discarded as irrelevant by the Obama camp.

This outrageous accommodation, though it came from an institution well accustomed to such outrages, nevertheless merited scathing denunciation. It was with this in mind that on Thursday, April 16, The Catholic League issued the following statement:

"When President Barack Obama spoke at Georgetown University on April 14, the White House requested that all religious symbols and signage that might appear as a backdrop to where the president was to speak be covered up. Georgetown acceded to the request and made sure that the symbol “IHS,” a monogram of the name Jesus Christ, was not in sight.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to this issue today:

“The cowardice of Georgetown to stand fast on principle tells us more than we need to know about what is going on there, but the bigger story is the audacity of the Obama administration to ask a religious school to neuter itself before the president speaks there. No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him. Moreover, the same church and state fanatics who go nuts every time a polling place is set up in the basement of a Catholic school have been noticeably silent over this incident.

“Obama will be speaking at Notre Dame, and receiving an honorary award, on May 17. Will his advance team ask Notre Dame to scrub the campus clean of religious symbols? Or just the ones that might appear behind the podium? Obama is in enough trouble with Catholics—over his pro-abortion executive orders and appointees, his position on embryonic stem cell research and his war on the conscience rights of healthcare workers—that it seems almost suicidal for his administration to push the envelope one more time. This is getting old fast.”"

END OF STATEMENT

Catholics United, which has remained conspicuously silent on all manner of sacrilegious acts and other anti-Catholic outrages, is never so stoic when it comes to criticism of their beloved Caesar. Predictably, they posted a criticism of Bill Donohue on their own website the very next day. Under a blog post entitled, "Catholics United Challenges Bill Donohue to Debate Catholics Values and the Economy," Director of Organization and communications director James Salt wrote the following (all grammatical errors in the following statement are fully his):

"Asks Donohue for a more substantive debate than criticizing stage decorations.

In response to the far-right’s misleading attack on the White House preparations for Obama’s appearance at Georgetown University on Tuesday, Catholics United communications director James Salt issued the following statement:

“Far-right Catholic groups have become so irrelevant that they’ve reduced themselves to complaining about the stage setting at Obama’s April 14th appearance at Georgetown University. As the new Administration and Congress seek to fight unemployment, rescue the banks and end the senseless conflict in Iraq, all Bill Donohue and his friends at Fox News and the Drudge Report can do is complain about the President’s set decoration?

Americans are tired of this ideologically-driven nonsense. The American people - including Catholics – have made it clear that they want us to move past the political antics of fear and distraction to solve our nation’s urgent problems. Catholics United challenges Bill Donohue to a debate on how Catholic values should influence the economic recovery plan.’"

END OF STATEMENT

Allow me to provide a brief lexicon to help decipher Mr. Salt's text:

- "American:" Anyone who supports politically correct interests. All others are lumped in with the "far-right."

- "Catholic:" Anyone who favors a Catholic model in which: women, homosexuals, and those who are married are allowed to become priests; abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, and any other form of sexual gratification outside of marriage is seen as moral; the Pope, the Bishops, and other leaders are democratically elected by an uninformed and easily manipulated electorate; there is no talk of sin unless it is of a corporate nature or in reference to disagreement with politically correct interests; salvation has more to do with this life than the life that is to come, which is preferably never mentioned; and Jesus is seen not as a fully human, fully divine member of the Blessed Trinity, but rather as a hip philosopher who would have felt more at home at the Woodstock festival than in a temple. All self-identified Catholics who do not favor this model are uniformly lumped in with the "far-right".

- "Drudge Report:" A single internet news source that specializes in providing links to news stories that are of particular interest to enemies of politically correct interests and which are generally a source of embarrassment to politically correct interests. Often held up as a reason for why the internet needs to be regulated by politically correct interests.

- "Far-right:" A vague term generally referring to anyone who fails to enthusiastically and uncritically support Barack Obama's and Catholics United's agenda in its entirety. Often used to describe individuals provably to the right of Michael Moore. Deemed domestic terrorists by politically correct interests.

- "Fight unemployment:" To create economic conditions that maximize the number of individuals who depend on the federal government for their primary or sole means of sustenance. Deemed a priority by politically correct interests.

- "FOX News:" The only major news outlet not completely dominated by politically correct interests. The suppression of this rogue news source has been deemed a priority by politically correct interests.

- "Ideologically-driven nonsense:" Any attempts to highlight any affront to Catholicism in the words and actions of individuals with views similar to those held by Catholics United and those of a like mind. Deemed unacceptable use of language by politically correct interests.

- "Irrelevant:" A term used in reference to all those outspoken opponents of politically correct interests. Whenever possible, Catholics United and those of a like mind prefer to take the ignore-them-and-they-will-go-away approach with such individuals rather than answer their arguments. Use of the term "irrelevant" is part of that approach.

- "Misleading:" Any attempts to cast the actions of Catholics United and those of a similar ideology in anything other than a glowingly positive light. Deemed unacceptable use of language by politically correct interests.

- "Our nation's urgent problems:" Any problem that can provide a convenient distraction from "political antics of fear and distraction."

- "Political antics of fear and distraction:" The act of identifying or referencing truths deemed uncomfortable by or incriminating to politically correct interests. Deemed unacceptable use of language by politically correct interests.

- "Rescue the banks:" To impose financially disastrous demands on independently owned and operated banks so as to place said banks in dire financial straights, thus allowing the federal government to step in and regulate them in perpetuity, with no possibility of allowing these banks to return to independent ownership and operative status. Deemed a priority by politically correct interests.

- "Senseless conflict:" Any conflict instigated by opponents of politically correct interests. Deemed especially senseless if it causes those who commit crimes against humanity to be held accountable for their actions.

- "Set decoration:" See "Stage decoration."

- "Stage decoration:" A way of describing the use of items for the purpose of covering up all religious symbols, so as to keep President Obama from having to share the stage with any of his fellow Messiahs.

- "Stage setting:" See "Stage decoration."

There is an added bit of irony to James Salt's statement. Mr. Salt was the previously unnamed member of Catholics United who attempted to silence my criticism of Barack Obama's anti-Catholic agenda. My response to Mr. Salt's unseemly action was to challenge him to a debate on the merits of a Catholic case for and against support of Barack Obama and his agenda. I posted this challenge in several venues. Among them was Facebook, the place where he first accosted me about my criticisms of Obama. His response to my challenge was to drop me as a Facebook friend and to cut off all contact with me. Now that he has issued a challenge to debate Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, I know that there are no involuntary obstacles preventing him from engaging in debates. My original challenge to debate stands; and I will here reissue that challenge, in the hopes that Mr. Salt will break his self-imposed silence (which, as of the time of this posting, has lasted 43 days) and answer my challenge. I await his response...

Habemus Papam!

2009-04-19T19:11:00.001-07:00

This Divine Mercy Sunday marks exactly four years since we heard those blessed words that marked the election of Pope Benedict XVI. It was a special day for all of us; and coming as it did after one of the longest papacies in Church history, it was the first papal conclave experienced by an entire generation of Catholics.

It was, for me, technically the third conclave of my life; but since I was only a year and a half old during the two fateful conclaves separated by a month in 1978, it was the first conclave of which I have any memory.

It seems like just yesterday. Here we were, still reeling from the news of the sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo, only to learn that Pope John Paul II - our Holy Father for more than half a century - was now in the last days of his amazing life. For any Catholic, it was a "Where were you?" moment in history.

I was living in a rented house in Steubenville at the time, and was keeping up with the live broadcasts on FOX News and EWTN from home. In the early afternoon of Friday, April 1, reports circulated that the Pope had breathed his last. It proved to be a false rumor, and for once not an intentional April Fools' joke. The man born Karol Wojtyla would actually live for another day. Then, at approximately 3 PM on Saturday, April 2, after days of round-the-clock vigil, I saw the news bulletin that an official press release had been issued by the Vatican - our Holy Father had gone to his eternal reward.

It was a day of mourning for the entire world as well as the Church. That said, it is difficult to explain to anyone who was not in a similar situation what effect the death of a Pope has in a heavily Catholic environment like Franciscan University and its surrounding community. My roommate and I decided to go to the 4 PM Saturday vigil Mass at St. Peter's Catholic Church in downtown Steubenville. It was painful walking into the Church and seeing the tears flowing on so many faces. The celebrant priest broke the news to those that had not yet heard. It was one of the most solemn occasions I've ever been part of.

After the Mass, my roommate and I remained in prayer for some time. I finished my prayers first, and as I rose from my knees and looked around the Church I spotted a young lady in the back of the Church who was obviously trying to get my attention. Leaving my roommate to his prayers, I walked towards the vestibule to meet her. It turned out she was a photographer for the local newspaper, the Steubenville Herald Star. She had come to the Church to get some images for the story that would be in the paper the next day concerning the Pope's death, and had taken some photos of us as we knelt in prayer. She asked for permission to use the photos. After speaking with my roommate, I agreed, and thought nothing more of the matter. She had, after all, taken a number of photos, and I imagined she had more photogenic images than the back side of an overweight balding man kneeling in prayer. At worst, I figured it would end up as a grainy black and white photo on page 8 of the metro section of the paper. Imagine my surprise, then, when our neighbor showed up at our doorstep the next afternoon with a copy of the Sunday paper. There, in a gigantic color photo that took up half of the front page of the paper, where my roommate and I, kneeling in prayer after Mass the day before. On the one hand, it is humbling to be forever associated with such an important piece of history in such a manner. On the other hand, there were a number of lovelier images to which I would much more gladly have subjected the readers of the Herald Star in relation to such a memorable event.

The next few weeks were a somber affair on campus. Masses, Vespers, prayer services, and a large number of other activities all featured prominent images of our dearly departed Holy Father in the prime of his papacy, with a bouquet of flowers next to the image and votive candles and kneelers available for those who wanted to offer up prayers for the repose of the Holy Father's soul. Classes went on as usual, with the occasional speculation of who the next Pope might be, but largely focusing on the theological issues at hand. One morning, Dr. Mark Miravalle walked into our Christian Spirituality class, and prefaced the lecture with a rendering of the interview he'd had that morning on the FOX News program Fox and Friends with Steve Doocy and Kiran Chetry. On live national television he was asked, among other things, if the new Pope might "soften" the Church's stance on the use of condoms in Africa to "combat" the AIDS epidemic (reminding us that, despite FOX News' clear superiority as a news source relative to its sorry competitors in the cable news business, it is still very much owned and operated by secular interests).

The conclave to elect a new Pope began on Monday, April 18. Everyone expected a long, drawn out affair, what with all the apparent political intrigue going on among the members of the Church's hierarchy (seriously, non-Catholic news sources - and many self-professed Catholic news sources, for that matter - are absolutely worthless when it comes to learning anything worthwhile about Catholic matters not already addressed by the Vatican).

That Tuesday, I went to class as usual, and the first two classes of the day came and went without incident. As I was getting ready to leave Dr. Miravalle's Christian Spirituality class, I spied my friend Mikhail in the hallway, and he motioned at me to get my attention. I stepped into the hallway, only to have him mouth something incoherent at me. I asked him to speak up, and he said in a quiet voice, "We have a Pope!" From that moment on, the campus of Franciscan University was in an absolute state of chaos. I rushed back into my classroom, told the 15-20 students still lingering that an as-yet unnamed man had been elected Pope, waited for the seconds it took for the classroom to clear, collected my friend Bob (blind since birth and celebrating his birthday on that fateful day - Happy Birthday, Bob!), and made for the nearest source of cable, the J.C. Williams center, as quickly as possible.

The half-walk, half-run from the classroom building to the Williams Center is something I will never forget. There was an absolute stampede of bodies rushing from our direction and from the direction of the dorms to the Center. Clearly, no one wanted to be late for the announcement. Even Bob, who usually let me lead the way any time we walked anywhere together, was urging me to go faster down a relatively steep hill so we could be there on time. The scene reminded me of those old Gateway computer commercials where all the deliverymen, computer boxes in tow, were running in an open grass field to their respective destinations. This sort of thing only happens in places like Steubenville, and I imagine that only the scene in Rome - where people were getting out of their stalled cars in rush hour traffic to make it to the Vatican in time for the announcement - was more chaotic.

When we made it into the center, there were easily 500+ people crowded around 3 medium-sized TVs, intently watching the images of white smoke coming from the chimney and the empty balcony from which the announcement would be made. The conversation level was what you would expect for a relatively small room containing so many people. It continued that way for about 10-15 minutes, until Cardinal Protodeacon Jorge Medina Estevez appeared on the balcony, at which point the entire room became deathly quiet. The Cardinal recited the usual lines associated with the election of a new Pope, and spoke in Italian for the benefit of the masses gathered in St. Peter's Square. The moment he uttered the words "Habemus Papam!" the room quickly went berserk, and then just as quickly went quiet to hear the rest of the announcement. I wouldn't have believed it possible had I not been there myself.

I had, for my part, hoped to hear the name of Francis Cardinal Arinze, thinking that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, at the age of 78, would be deemed too old to be a candidate. I'm not sure why I thought that, exactly; but I know I wasn't the only one. Nevertheless, when Cardinal Estevez uttered the name "Josephum", I raised my hand in glee. When the name "Ratzinger" was uttered shortly thereafter, that tiny room of 500 people nearly caused me permanent hearing loss. Uncontrolled jubilation, absolute pandemonium, unrestrained joy...none of these things can do justice to the mood in that room at that moment. I will forever be glad that I was there to raise voice in union with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in joyful celebration at having a Holy Father once again.

The deafening volume lowered just enough to allow us to hear the name "Benedictum" to be heard. I saw some people jogging their memories, then whispers of "Benedict XVI" went around, and then the onslaught of joyous noise resumed. I would be very surprised if anyone in that room was able to speak above a conversational tone for the rest of the day. The only concern I had that day was whether or not I would still have enough of a voice to deliver my presentation in Dr. Alan Schreck's Historical Foundations class the following Thursday.

I left the J.C. William center that day about as giddy as I have ever felt (Bob went home with another friend who lived nearby. On my birthdays I get a few phone calls and a few cards. On Bob's birthday, he gets a new Pope. Ah well, you can't begrudge a man the accident of his birth :-). As I was walking back in the general direction of the classrooms, I ran into my friend and classmate Alan, one of the finest Englishmen I have ever known (a fact that I doubt will change if and when I get to meet very many Englishmen). I think my giddy Daffy Duck impersonation (hoo hoo! hoo hoo! hoo hoo!) entertained him immensely. Or maybe it was the suddenly jubilant mood of the day. Hard to say. Few of us had room at that moment for anything resembling rational thought.

I wondered if classes would be taught the rest of the day in light of the new cause for celebration. It turned out that they were. My only remaining class that day was Theological Foundations, taught by none other than Dr. Scott Hahn (I promise, no more name-dropping for the remainder of this post. It was a joy to see him again yesterday at the Catholic Men's Conference, by the way). I am eternally grateful that class was not cancelled that day. Dr. Hahn was no more in the mood for a lecture than any of the rest of us. Instead, he asked us for our reactions to the day's events, then proceeded to tell us the story of the two times he got to meet Cardinal Ratzinger in person. At the time, Dr. Hahn had written the forewords to the English translations to two of Cardinal Ratzinger's books. Each time one of those books was published, Dr. Hahn happened to take his personal copy with him to Rome (where he always went during Franciscan University's spring break to teach a week-long course). In both cases, Dr. Hahn had been assigned the same liaison. In both cases, he and his liaison were dining in the same restaurant during a relatively slow hour for business. In both cases, Cardinal Ratzinger came into the same restaurant with an entourage. In both cases, Dr. Hahn's liaison - who knew Cardinal Ratzinger personally - introduced them (the second time, Kimberly Hahn was present for the introductions). And in both cases, the future Pope signed copies of the books he wrote and which contained Dr. Hahn's forewords.

Dr. Hahn credits the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI with being the single greatest influence in his own theological studies. It was evident in his face that day as he told us of the two different chance meetings. The look on Dr. Hahn's face was childlike, just what you would expect from someone telling the story of when he got to meet one of his personal heroes. It added a personal touch to the day's events. Of the many joyous events I had in three years of living in Steubenville, only the joy felt on the day of my graduation can rival the joy that I felt on the day when, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we were given a new Pope.

Thank you for four wonderful years, Papa Benedetto. Your flock loves you. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Hilarious

2009-04-17T15:32:00.000-07:00

I found this on Mark Shea's blog, and I couldn't resist. It is a nightmare that eventually all religious-minded bloggers have...

In fairness, I should add that the abuse orthodox Catholic bloggers are subjected to should count as redemptive suffering. Please, Lord, let it count as redemptive suffering...

Obama Administration Now Labels Pro-Life Groups As Threats To National Security, Warns Against Unspecified Domestic "Right-Wing Extremist" Violence

2009-04-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

Link

Of course, it could just be a coincidence that this report happened to be issued by liberal bureaucrats during the watch of the most radically leftist President in United States history. For my part, though, I sleep a bit better at night knowing that domestic gun sales to law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed since Obama's election.

Not that the Marxist-in-chief would try to impose his will on an unarmed populace or anything. I mean, socialism never tramples on individual liberties, does it?

10 Holy Cross Priests Add Their Voices To The Growing Opposition To Obama's Notre Dame Invite

2009-04-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

Read their joint statement here. Hat tip to Mark Shea.

I can only imagine the grief that the member priests of a religious order must feel when one of their own violates the vows they took upon ordination. I have said it before, and I shall say it again: so long as Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., remains President of the University of Notre Dame, the damage done by this commencement debacle to the university's reputation as a flagship American Catholic university will never be fully repaired. More Holy Cross fathers such as the signatories of the above letter must step up and return Notre Dame to its classical liberal arts and orthodox Catholic roots. If Fr. Jenkins, or men of similar measure, continue to run the university into the ground doctrinally and spiritually, then the Obama commencement debacle will prove to be the merely the latest in a long line of past, present, and future scandals of increasingly greater and more vulgar magnitude perpetrated by the university.

Please supports the efforts of Notre Dame Response and other groups who are lining up to combat this scandal. In many ways, the integrity of American Catholic higher education hangs in the balance. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Take It For What It's Worth, But...

2009-04-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

I did a random search of dissident "Catholic" websites (as their names popped into my mind) and looked through the pages of the following 10 groups:

- ARCC (Association for Rights of Catholics in the Church)
- Call to Action
- Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
- Catholics United
- Dignity USA
- FutureChurch
- National Coalition of American Nuns
- Pax Christ USA
- Voice of the Faithful
- Women's Ordination Conference

(As an aside, you can do a Google search to find the websites for these groups. I have no desire to link to them personally.)

It occurred to me that ministries dedicated to promoting Catholic truth and spirituality would devote at least a portion of their site to messages relating to the Lenten or Easter seasons during the appropriate time of year. My search of the above 10 sites showed only one group (Dignity USA) contained a link to a message relating to the Easter season on their primary page. Catholics in Alliance had 2 posts on their blog that referenced Easter (though linked from the primary page, the link titles do not explicitly state that they are related to Easter), one of them quickly segueing into the "second most important event of the week," the start of the Major League Baseball season (the other essentially quoted a prayer from an ancient liturgical rite). Beyond that, my admittedly superficial search of these sites turned up no references to Lent or Easter. Instead, most of these sites - when not engaging in out-and-out criticism of the Church's hierarchy - focused on secular news and encouraging visitors to engage in politically-related activism.

As I mentioned above, take that for what you will. It just seems to me that any self-identified Catholic ministry would devote at least a portion of Easter Sunday to address the most important feast in the Church's liturgical calendar. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Wage Of Sin Is Death. The Wage Of The Death Of He Who Was Without Sin? Life.

2009-04-12T10:13:00.000-07:00

True love never comes without a cross to bear; but it also brings such joy as to make all the suffering worthwhile.

It is only fitting, then, that the greatest love came with the greatest cross to bear. Our Lord suffered, died, and was buried on a Friday afternoon.

It is even more fitting that beyond the greatest cross lay the greatest joy. On Sunday morning, Our Lord proved that death itself could not diminish divine love or divine joy.

When Christ arose, He not only conquered death, He enabled all of creation to enjoy life anew. The new Adam redeemed all that the original Adam had corrupted.

For us, of course, it isn't quite that simple. We lack the power to conquer death on our own. But on this day, the greatest act of love in all of eternity came to final fruition; and He who is love invited us all to embrace Him in the embrace that brings everlasting life. But it is for us to exercise our God-given free will to embrace Him freely; and to pray that on the day death takes us from this life, that we may die in His embrace and be brought before the eternal beatific glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is risen today! Alleluia!!!

Please Pray For Persecuted Catholic Journalist Robert Kumpel

2009-04-11T11:59:00.000-07:00

The worst part of this story is that Kumpel is being unjustly persecuted by an unforgiving and unrelenting Catholic bureaucracy, and that this bureaucracy apparently has the backing of the local Bishop, who has upheld the measures taken against Kumpel. You can find the details of the story in the following story background blog post from the Roman Catholic blog, a personal testimonial from Mr. Kumpel in a Renew America article, and through a blog post from The Curt Jester blog.

To hold a grudge against someone (though it runs counter to the Christian call to forgive) is one thing. To deny access to daily Mass and the Sacraments to someone who has done nothing to warrant de facto interdict or excommunication is quite a different story. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

And Bowing His Head, He Breathed His Last...

2009-04-09T21:17:00.000-07:00

Now that it is officially past midnight (and I have been recruited at the last minute to recite the part of Simon of Cyrene during the Living Stations of the Cross), I would like to take a moment to share my thoughts on the importance of this day.

When I was a small child (in terms of age, as I was apparently never actually small) and still living in Puerto Rico, I remember that during each Good Friday, all of the local TV stations became 24/7 broadcasts for movies relating to the Passion of Our Lord. I remember being annoyed by this at the time, since I was deprived of an opportunity to watch my morning shows when I finally had a day off from school (at least it was still called Good Friday back then, and not "Spring Weekend" as secular interests now demand of public schools). My annoyance quickly gave way to curiosity, however, as I saw the same thing over and over again and started to ask questions about the meaning behind such a continuous running of the same story. Of course, I was a small child, and those who bothered to answer my questions were not exactly the best-informed sources (though I still appreciate their efforts); but I can honestly say that I became fascinated by the movies, and often would pass judgment (no pun intended) on which movies looked the best, which actors best looked the part, etc. (again, small child, and not adept at analyzing acting ability, so whoever looked the best was the best).

25 years, a language change, and a master's in theology later, I still find myself asking questions as I watch the Passion-related movies that network and cable stations still bother to broadcast on TV (to my dismay, it is now 6 years and counting with no confirmed sighting of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ on network or cable TV, though I welcome the opportunity to be corrected on that point). Of course, now I have only myself and a few theologically inclined friends to talk to about the really tough questions; and instead of a child-like acceptance of what I am told, I analyze, over-analyze, and then do some more analyzing of every answer I receive. This tendency has proven to be the closest I can come to imitating the sufferings of Our Lord on the long and winding road from Gethsemane to Calvary, as I drive myself absolutely nuts trying to analyze this and that. I am thankful at least that something always happens to make me step back and see the larger picture. And what a picture!

Even the brutal treatment Christ receives in Gibson's Passion cannot come close to doing justice to what Christ really experienced. For our sins, the devil demanded a price that we could not pay. Jesus, fully man and fully God, chose to sacrifice Himself for us - not because the debt had to be paid, not because He was ordered by the Father to do so, but because He so loved us that He could not bear the thought of us not being reconciled to His beloved Father in Heaven. Being fully God, He was infinitely worth more than the price the devil demanded for our sins. Being fully man, He knew He would suffer grievously for us. During the events of the Passion, we must remember that it was not just brutal executioners physically torturing Christ. Christ realized he was fulfilling Simeon's prophecy: He, the King of kings, had become a sign that was rejected by the very people to whom His Father had promised a king. He felt the brutal sting of that rejection, just as keenly as he felt the abuse of the executioners, for He loved them all immeasurably and was dying for them as well.

Christ suffered on all fronts. In the worldly realm, He was subjected to the most brutal tortures then know to man. In the otherworldly realm, He had presented Himself as a sacrifice to the evil one. The devil had one chance - one chance in the whole of eternity - to destroy Christ. And he who hates all, he who hates above all others the One who loves above all others, mustered all of the power of hell to destroy God the Son. Christ alone, among all men, felt the full fury of the devil's wrath. Christ alone, among all men, was not given the divine protection without which the devil would consume us and all of creation with an unquenchable fire of hatred. Christ alone, among all men, learned what it meant to experience the full onslaught of all the evil that has ever existed.

That is the price He paid. That is the agony He underwent, freely and with no obligation to do so. He did it for us. He would have done it just for you. He would have done it just for me. He would have done it just for Caiaphas, the chief earthly architect of his condemnation. He would have done it just for Pilate, who washed his hands and turned a blind eye to the carnage that had already taken place and the carnage that would ensue. He would have done it just for Judas, of whom He had already said that it would have been better for him if he had never been born. Such is the measure of love beyond measure.

We all know what happened on Sunday morning. It was proof that Satan's onslaught failed. It was proof that Satan's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice cost him souls beyond measure. But on this day, the world groaned, for a Savior was put to death; and it was all inspired by a love that death itself could not extinguish. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

"We Support Notre Dame" Founders Not As Non-Partisan As They Appear

2009-04-09T20:16:00.000-07:00

It turns out that, in response to the growing (and much-deserved) criticism of the University of Notre Dame and its President, Fr. John I. Jenkins, for inviting Barack Obama to speak at Notre Dame's 2009 commencement (and receive an honorary law degree), a support group has arisen to back the university's decision. "We Support Notre Dame" is a collective effort of four groups - Notre Dame Alums in Support of Fr. Jenkins (a Facebook group), Faithful America (a self-described multireligious effort that was essentially created to fan the flames of outrage over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal), Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and - surprise, surprise! - Catholics United. It's really three groups, as Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United are mirror groups founded by the same individuals.

The de facto voice of "We Support Notre Dame" is that of Tom Mattzie, who in television appearances relating to this issue identifies himself only as a Notre Dame graduate. In offering his support for the university's decision to invite Obama, Mattzie offers the usual platitudes: abortion is only one issue among many (the infamous "seamless garment" approach), Obama is in line with Catholic teaching on many issues, his is a historic Presidency, commencement invites should be opportunities for dialogue, etc.

What Mattzie fails to mention in his appearances is his long and storied career as a liberal political operative. His name is linked to several Democrat campaigns, he is a frequent contributor to left-wing blogs such as The Daily Kos and The Huffington Post, and he has been involved with a whole laundry list of notoriously liberal political advocacy and 527 groups, including the above-mentioned Faithful America (which he founded), the short-lived Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (which he also founded), Accountable America (also founded), and - most notoriously - the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org (which he ran during the 2004 campaign cycle). Bear that in mind any time his name is linked to a supposedly non-partisan effort.

It turns out, by the way, that Mattzie isn't the only member of "We Support Notre Dame" with connections to George Soros. According to an October 20, 2008 press release, the The Catholic League states that George Soros "is connected to two apologists for abortion rights, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. In 2006, Soros’ Open Society Institute gave Catholics in Alliance $100,000 (double the amount he gave in 2005), and in the same year Catholics in Alliance listed Catholics United on its 990 as an organization with which it has a formal relationship. John Podesta, who runs the Soros-funded organization, Center for American Progress, admits that he works closely with Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United." (Hat tip once again to The Curt Jester for bringing this to my attention.)

I've detailed in previous blog posts the nature of the group Catholics United. A look at their own website, including their blog, will show their long history of serving as uncritical apologists for left-wing politicians while saving all of their criticism for right-leaning politicians and those who criticize the left. Make no mistake: this is not a group dedicated to promoting the greater glory of God. It and its sister apostate (not a typo), Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are poorly-disguised political front groups. Their lack of theological insight on even the most basic Catholic moral principles and failure to address matters not related to politics or pet "social justice" projects (through which they urge political activism) speaks to this point. And the facts bear out that the same is true for the conglomerate that is "We Support Notre Dame."

Please understand, I am not saying that everyone who supports Notre Dame's invitation of Barack Obama to speak at commencement is a partisan liberal operative (as opposed to those who really are partisan liberal operatives - such as the component parts of "We Support Notre Dame" - who are chronically incapable of seeing anything other than a right-wing conspiracy when criticism is leveled at them or those they support). However, the more information comes to light, the more it becomes apparent that the most vocal supporters of Obama's Notre Dame invitation have been the most vocal supporters of Obama all along. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Amidst Continuing Fallout, Notre Dame President Defends Scandalous Obama Invite And Insults The Intelligence Of Catholics Everywhere

2009-04-09T18:58:00.000-07:00

Remember when I said before that my belief that Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins should either resign or be removed from his post should not be construed as a call to action? Well, inasmuch as I have the right to do so, I now state unequivocally my belief that for the University of Notre Dame to retain any shred of credibility as a Catholic institution in good standing with the Church, the Board of Trustees must see to the removal of Fr. Jenkins in addition to rescinding the Obama invitation.

Fr. Jenkins not only reiterated his conviction to honor the Obama invite, he chose to use Holy Week as a platform to insult the intelligence of Catholics everywhere by stating that he is not, in fact, in violation of the USCCB's 2004 statement, which states in part: "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." Fr. Jenkins actually has the temerity to suggest that this does not apply to Obama on the grounds that Obama is not a Catholic, as if to suggest that God only calls on Catholics to follow these moral principles.

I guess in eating human beings the great white shark doesn't really act in defiance of the fundamental human moral principle of man's inherent right to life. After all, the great white shark isn't human.

At least the great white shark has an excuse that neither Obama nor his newly-minted enabler, Fr. Jenkins, can claim: it lacks the free will to engage in or condone the taking of human life, or to honor those who do.

Pray for a softening of Fr. Jenkins' heart, but also pray that he no longer be given a platform that affords him the chance to further debase the Catholic character of Our Lady's school.

The LifeNews.com article has been reprinted in its entirety below. You can also find the original article by clicking here. Pay special attention to the action alert at the end of the article. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Notre Dame President Defends Pro-Abortion Obama Invite Despite Bishops' Rules

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 9, 2009

South Bend, IN (LifeNews.com) -- The president of the University of Notre Dame is again defending his decision to invite pro-abortion President Barack Obama to give the college's commencement address. In a new statement, Rev. John Jenkins refuses to back down in the face of a document from the nation's Catholic bishops.

In June 2004, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement that makes it clear that Catholic colleges should not allow abortion advocates to have a platform to speak to students or be honored with special awards and degrees.

"Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions,' the bishops say.

But Jenkins, in a letter to the Board of Trustees at the University of Notre Dame, says his decision to invite and honor Obama with a degree doesn't violate the bishops' guidelines.

Noting how numerous bishops and pro-life groups have cited the document to criticize his decision, Jenkins writes, "Our interpretation of this document is different from the one that has been imposed by those criticizing us."

Jenkins calls the document "provisional" but claims he and other Notre Dame officials "have tried to follow both the letter and the spirit of its recommendations."

The Notre Dame president claims the college's invitation to Obama doesn't apply because Obama is not Catholic.

"Because the title of the document is 'Catholics in Political Life,' we understood this to refer to honoring Catholics whose actions are not in accord with our moral principles," Jenkins writes. "This interpretation was supported by canon lawyers we consulted, who advised us that, by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in 'defiance' of it."

"Moreover, fellow university presidents have told me that their bishops have told them that in fact it is only Catholic politicians who are referred to in this document," he adds.

Jenkins also says he is within the guidelines because he has repeatedly condemned Obama's pro-abortion record.

Patrick Reilly, president of Cardinal Newman Society, which has secured the signatures of 255,000 people who are opposed to Notre Dame's decision, says Jenkins' interpretation is wrong.

He points to the fact that most of the 29 Catholic bishops who have publicly criticized Notre Dame for honoring President Obama have cited “Catholics in Political Life” as foundational to their arguments.

“How can Father Jenkins maintain that his interpretation of the Bishops’ statement is correct when so many of the bishops themselves, including Notre Dame’s own bishop, have given the exact opposite interpretation?” Reilly asked.

“Who is he to reinterpret the bishops’ own statement?” he told LifeNews.com.

“In his statement, Father Jenkins once again attempts to argue that Notre Dame is not suggesting support for the president’s abysmal record on life issues,” said Reilly. “And yet it is plainly clear to more than two dozen bishops, thousands of students and alumni and the more than a quarter million petition signers that Notre Dame has betrayed Catholic values.”

ACTION: Contact Fr. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, at 574-631-5000, fax 574-631-2770, email president@nd.edu, or mail to 317 Main Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556. You can call Notre Dame at (574) 631-5000 or use the email form at http://president.nd.edu/contact-us.

"How I Found The Superman," 100 Years Later: Chesteron Still Rings True

2009-04-04T18:57:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite G.K. Chesterton essays was published in 1909, and is entitled "How I Found The Superman." It is a wonderful spoof on modernist belief in general and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche in particular. Neither modernists (in the general sense of the term), socialists, nor eugenicists are spared Chesterton's biting wit as he manages in a few short paragraphs to expose fatal flaws in many of the modernist stances of his contemporaries. It also shows what foolishness can result from allowing man to be the arbiter of his own truth (which I think was ultimately the point of the essay). It should also not be lost on the reader that Chesterton cites the mental illness of the alleged Superman's parents as being directly linked to the beliefs they choose to embrace. The full text of the essay can be found here, and it is a very short and highly entertaining read. I would advise, however, that you have an online dictionary handy to help out with some of the terminology unless you happen to be British or are familiar with the colloquiallisms of early 20th century England.

As an aside, I have to admit that this essay holds a special place in my heart because it played a key role in preventing me from having to retake a philosophy class my first semester at Franciscan University. It took some time to adjust to viewing things from a philosophical perspective, and my grades suffered accordingly. My paper for the course was the last chance I had to salvage a decent grade from the class. I chose to write about the stark contrasts between Nietzche's concept of the Superman - the very model of the modern eugenicist - and the comic book hero who was the polar opposite of Nietzche's ideal. I used Chesteron's essay to illustrate the irony that arises from the fact that while Nietzche himself lays out objective criteria to define the "Superman," his very opposition to objective truth would make it impossible for him to offer any honest opposition to the notion that the wretched creature in Chesterton's essay could itself be the "Superman." The professor liked the paper enough to pull my grade in the class up to a B, which allowed me to count the class towards my prerequisites for the MA Theology program. End of aside.

In fairness, I should mention that there is a good deal of compelling evidence to suggest that several of Nietzche's later works - such as "The Will to Power" - may have been altered in subtle ways by Nietzche's sister after the onset of his mental illness and may not necessarily reflect the messages that Nietzche himself intended to convey. There is, however, a large body of work from before the onset of Nietzche's illness that attests to his rampant opposition to the moral tenets of Christianity (which he derided as a "slave-morality"), his fierce opposition to the notion that such a thing as objective truth existed, and his disturbing views on the need for the wealthy and powerful to exert their superiority over the rest of mankind for the betterment of the human race (and which is, in large part, the basis for his views on the "Superman"). It is also known that Nietzche was a great admirer and defender of both Thucydides and Niccolo Machiavelli, and believed their pragmatism to be a more ideal model for human morality. The influence of theories of human evolution are also very evident in his writings (though it is not the evolutionary theories of Darwin, but rather those of the late 18th and early 19th century biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, that influenced him), as is Nietzche's own influence on later schools of thought (such as existentialism, the eugenicist tendencies of Margaret Sanger and her ideological progeny, and the rampant amorality of Alfred Kinsey and his ideological progeny).

Speaking of Nietzche, I came across a video on Youtube showing footage from what is either the summer before Nietzche's death or the last few days of his life, which would date the footage as either 1899 or 1900. Nietzche died on August 25, 1900 after an 11 year bout with mental illness. Many plausible theories have arisen that cite physical factors as the cause for his mental breakdown, though there are numerous individuals - myself included - who believe it was at least in part influenced by the psychological ill effects of adhering to his own philosophy.

I found these images to be haunting; but then, I have a tendency to feel a sense of eeriness anytime I look at images from the early days of photography and full motion video. The first motion picture did not come out until 1888 (entitled Roundhay Garden Scene), and though motion film had become a well-known phenomenon by the turn of the century, film footage from 1900 and before is still very rare. Live soundtracks would not appear until the late 1920's, so don't bother trying to adjust the audio settings. These are silent shots from the very early days of motion pictures:

One hopes that, sometime during those torturous 11 years, Nietzche may have found a way to reconcile himself with the God he so brazenly denied and the Christianity he so brazenly assailed for most of his life, as Oscar Wilde reportedly did on his deathbed. Alas, the hearts of the dead are not revealed to us except through their own words, so that shall remain a mystery until the life that is to come. Anyway, I hope my brief dabbling in parody and philosophy has left you with some food for thought. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Hillary Clinton Visits An Icon Of The Pro-Life Movement On Thursday, Receives An Award From An Icon Of The Pro-Abortion Movement On Friday

2009-03-28T06:40:00.000-07:00

We have assurances from the Obama administration that the Secretary of State's visit to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe and her claims to be overcome by a sense of peace while there were in no way politically motivated.

We also have assurances that there are no imminent plans to superimpose Michelle Obama's face over that of Our Lady.

That last one I actually believe. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is that of a pregnant woman, and the Obamas have expressed a lack of interest in being punished with another child.

Hat tip to The Curt Jester, who takes it from here. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

I Lost My Job A Month Ago Today...

2009-03-27T18:19:00.000-07:00

...and it has been one of the most peaceful and most productive months I've had in years.

It's an interesting feeling, being laid off from a job from which you have been praying for deliverance for years. I was working as a customer service representative at a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida call center. The insurance plan that I serviced was that of the Federal Employee Program. I answered calls for seven and a half hours a day. There were some interesting moments, and even some entertaining ones; but without going into too much detail, the job was a huge cross for me. I honestly don't know how much longer I could have lasted.

A month ago today, at approximately 11:15 on a Friday morning, I was on a call when my service manager left a small post-it note on my desk asking me to see her after the call. I had a feeling I knew what was coming, since the company was in the habit of doing lay offs on Fridays. The post-it note was pink: that should have been the first clue, though I didn't think about it at the time. When the call ended, I went to see my manager, and she asked me to walk with her downstairs. I knew then that I would not be returning to the floor; and despite the current state of the economy, I felt like a huge burden was about to be lifted from my shoulders.

My manager made small talk as we approached the elevator (as I worked on the 13th floor and suffer from a recurring case of sciatica, walking down the stairs was out of the question). As we approached the elevator, one of the gentlemen whose job is to make sure we are well-stocked with office supplies was waiting to board an elevator heading down. He must have known what was happening, because when he saw who was about to join him, he stepped aside and let us in. He did not follow; and as the elevator doors closed, he studiously avoided making eye contact with me. So did my manager, even as she continued her small talk. It was obvious to me that she did not enjoy this part of her job: it is not her job to decide who stays and who goes, though in typical bureaucratic fashion those who make such decisions leave it to others to break the bad news in person. I thought about telling her to relax, and that I knew what was coming. Yet I chose not to, not wanting to stick my foot in my mouth on the remote chance that I was not, in fact, about to be fired.

It's difficult to explain what I was feeling at the time. There was a sense of anticipation, to be sure, though it was mingled with a touch of dread as to how I was going to break the news to those closest to me. Mostly, though, I felt like a new adventure was about to begin, like a new chapter with infinite possibilities lay ahead of me.

Please understand, it's not that I hate working. When I took the job at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, it was out of dire financial necessity. Months of looking for a job that would let me put my MA Theology degree to use had proven fruitless, and I had less than $25 to my name and a mountain of debt when I accepted the job. In the two and half years since, I have continued to search for work relating to my chosen field of study. I have dozens of rejection letters to show for my efforts.

The job itself had aspects to it that made it difficult for a Catholic to cope. The insurance plan I serviced did not cover abortions, except in the proverbial cases of "rape, incest, and the health of the mother." As those who trained me in the job emphasized that coverage for medical services was largely based on medical necessity and contraceptives were covered without any restrictions (as routine preventive care, no less - apparently, celibacy and unplanned pregnancy are two maladies that need to be guarded against), I knew how little it took for a doctor to prove that abortion was justifiable based on the "health of the mother." For two and half years, I dreaded receiving a call dealing with abortion or requesting a referral to an abortion provider. I am eternally grateful that this phone call never came.

Leaving Steubenville was as big a culture shock for me as arriving there had been. I knew going back into the secular world was going to be a struggle after having essentially lived in a Catholic bubble for three years. And this job was as secular as it gets. There are far more anti-Catholics environments than the one I was in for two and half years; but this job environment drained me not because of its hostility to my faith, but rather because of its apathy towards it. Casual conversations about behaviors frowned upon by the Church were common, and to do our jobs "effectively," we were expected to "process phone calls" rather than help customers. I received a number of heart-rending calls in my time there, and I was expected to adopt a businesslike attitude towards such people in order to meet my weekly production quotas. I simply didn't have it in me.

I also didn't have the luxury of going to and from this job in a short commute. I had to ride a public bus because there weren't enough cars (or the money to buy enough cars) in the household to allow me a chance to get to work at my own pace. I lost three hours a day on the buses getting to and from work, and I doubt I need to explain what those three hours would have meant to anyone who works for a living. There was at least one benefit - and a wonderful benefit it was! - to the bus-riding arrangement, and that was the fact that I had ample opportunity to pray a full set of mysteries of the Rosary on the way to and from work each day. I can't begin to count the number of times I wept on that bus as I prayed, or the number of times the Blessed Mother drew me - tears and all - into her loving embrace. If not for those prayers and my awareness of those embraces, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not have endured through those two and half years.

So as I rode down the elevator with my service manager - a truly sweet and compassionate lady that I pray will find a job better suited to her personality - the realization that the brutal daily routine I had followed for two and a half years was about to come to an end filled me with a sense of peace that not even the imminent loss of a steady cash flow could overshadow. As it turned out, they were more generous than I thought they would be, offering me a full month's severance and the ability to collect unemployment at the end of that period. As I had several months' worth of salary in my savings account - ironically set aside to buy a car - and had yet to file my taxes, I realized I had a decent nest egg to see me through the foreseeable future. It was with a heartfelt "Thank you" to God that I walked out of that building for the last time. The subsequent bus ride home was the most relaxing and peaceful trip I'd ever experienced courtesy of a public transit authority.

As I sit here a month later - exactly 4 weeks since the lay off occurred in February - I can fully understand now the sentiment of a friend and former co-worker who left the company 3 months before I did: a month away from that place does a world of good to the human spirit. And there are no words to describe what a wonderful feeling it is to be able to do things with the time and attention that they deserve. Those of you who share my meticulous nature will know what I mean.

As I continue to search for work - especially work relating to my degree - in what is a very unfavorable economic climate, I find myself now in the same exact position I was in three years ago: with absolutely no idea of what the future holds or of the means by which God will sustain me through the trials that lay ahead. It reminds me of the closing lyrics to one my favorite Christian songs, the late and great Rich Mullins' Hard to Get:

...And I can't see how You're leading me
Unless You've led me here
Where I'm lost enough to let myself be led
And so You've been here all along I guess
It's just Your ways and You are
Just plain hard to get.

Amen. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Separation of Church and State? Obama Administration Trying To Silence Vatican Official

2009-03-26T17:45:00.000-07:00

For many of the readers of this blog, Archbishop Raymond Burke - soon to be Cardinal Burke, if past tradition holds - needs no introduction. He first began to make national headlines during the 2002 mid-term elections when, as Bishop of the Diocese of Lacrosse, Wisconsin, he warned elected Catholic officials from his diocese who supported legalized abortion not to present themselves for Holy Communion. By the time of the 2004 Presidential election, he was Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, and he once again made national headlines by advising then-Presidential nominee John Kerry to refrain from presenting himself for Communion at any parish in his diocese (Kerry instead chose to attend a Paulist center in Boston on those Sundays where he bothered to attend Catholic Mass, aside from the errant trip to Idaho where he appeared for Sunday Mass 15 minutes late and dressed in a ski suit, sauntered to the front of the Church where the first few rows of pews had been reserved for him and his entourage, and then had a cameraman record his receiving Communion for a next-day press release. What a touching show of humility. But I digress...). Archbishop Burke has since remained an outspoken opponent of allowing pro-abort Catholic politicians to present themselves for Communion, even forcing a debate on the issue within the painfully non-confrontational United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

It must have caused great consternation among pro-abortion politicians and a disturbingly sizable number of U.S. Bishops when on June 27, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI named Archbishop Burke Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Catholic Church's equivalent to Chief Justice of the United States. As the second-ranking judicial officer of the Catholic Church (behind only the Pope), the Archbishop now oversees canonical matters in the Church. As Archbishop Burke's stance against the reception of Communion by pro-abortion politicians was an argument he based on Canon Law, his appointment to the position of highest ranking canon lawyer in the Church by the Pope can only be construed as an affirmation of his stance on the matter.

Burke's elevation to the Roman Curia has not stopped his criticisms of self-identified Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion. One such politician is Kathleen Sebelius, presently the governor of Kansas and Barack Obama's choice to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As an ardent supporter of legalized partial birth abortion and avowed apologist for infamous abortionist George Tiller (more on Sebelius' pro-abortion political activities, and a list of links further detailing those activities, can be found here), Kathleen Sebelius has long been an enemy of the pro-life movement in Kansas, thus making her a perfect fit for Obama's cabinet.

It should come as no surprise that Archbishop Burke is no gushing admirer of Sebelius. His criticisms of her closely mirror those of Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who has publicly made his own opposition to her fitness to receive Communion public knowledge after a private meeting failed to sway Sebelius' stance. This has apparently made Burke a target of the Obama administration, and word is now spreading of an imminent attempt by the administration to exert pressure on the Vatican to silence Burke. If the abortionist-in-chief is truly serious about this, then I think he is about to receive some insight as to what Jesus meant when He said that "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail" against His Church.

Still, the mere mention of the possibility that Obama will try to unduly influence Vatican policy should make the hairs on the back of any faithful Catholic's neck stand on end. I pray his first attempt is his last attempt, and I already know that it will be a miserable failure of an attempt at that. The silver-tongued appendage of the eloquent teleprompter-in-chief will not mesmerize the Vicar of Christ, nor will the strong arm of the Obama administration silence the head of the Apostolic Signatura.

For a more detailed perspective on this matter, please read this wonderful piece by Austin Ruse (who along with his wife Cathleen Cleaver Ruse heads the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).

As events unfold, I'll be sure to pass along whatever other information comes my way.

Happy reading. I pray this finds you well. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Surprise, Surprise: Leftist Front Group "Catholics United" Praises Notre Dame For Hosting Obama, Attacks Critics As Right-Wing "Partisan Operatives"

2009-03-26T09:14:00.001-07:00

A few weeks ago, I shared my thoughts relating to a personal encounter with a highly ranked member of the fraudulently named group "Catholic United," which dedicates itself to giving "Catholic" cover to their favored left-leaning politicians as well as to minimizing said politicians' aiding and abetting of the culture of death (which they do by trying to create some kind of warped moral equivalence between opposing murder in the womb and the destruction of human embryos for unproven scientific research with issues that carry considerably less moral weight, such as socialized health care, environmental legislation, welfare reform, and minimum wage increases). You can revisit that post by scrolling further down or by by clicking here.

I've been checking their website since this past Saturday, waiting for their inevitable statement praising Notre Dame's invitation to Barack Obama as its 2009 commencement speaker and their equally inevitable denunciations of those who have engaged in their Catholic moral obligation to denounce this scandalous action. That statement came yesterday, courtesy of a blog post. Predictably, they say that "President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame will be nothing short of an honor for all Catholics."

Groups like Catholics United sadden me more than they anger me. The movement of dissent among so-called "Catholic" individuals and groups in this country has been going on for decades. There is no one cause to this, as a number of factors have converged to make it happen.

There is credible evidence, for instance, that Communists succeeded in infiltrating the Church at different levels to foment seeds of dissension, though this is something that various enemies of the Church have tried since the Church's founding, and this alone would hardly account for the woeful state we find ourselves in today.

The takeover of a large number of Catholic seminaries by modernists - which resulted in the formation and ordination of many men who never intended to abide by their vow of obedience (and in numerous unfortunate cases, the vow of chastity) - helped pave the way for dissent by gradually weakening the leadership of the Church in this country, and with it the laity's resistance to unsound teaching.

The advent of liberation theology, with its Marxist leanings, is certainly a contributing factor, directing the minds of many towards salvation from earthly forms of oppression while blinding many to the greater realities of spiritual salvation and the life of holiness we are called to live in order to show God our desire for that salvation and our desire to please Him above all else.

The widespread misrepresentation of the documents of Vatican II by faithless apostates was a large contributor, as many enemies of doctrinal orthodoxy have tried to create the impression that there is some kind of discontinuity between Vatican II and the twenty ecumenical councils that came before it, so as to foment the notion that the Church has taken a radical turn in its belief and practice since 1965 (which it has not).

In the aftermath of Vatican II, the previously detailed Land 'O Lakes Statement was a big step towards promoting dissent in Catholic universities (though such dissent was already brewing at the time of the statement, this document had the effect of "legitimizing" it in the eyes of many in the academic world).

Land 'O Lakes, in turn, was a stepping stone to the Charles Curran-led "academia" protest of Pope Paul VI's wonderful 1968 encyclical affirming the Church's long-held ban on artificial contraception, Humanae Vitae. The disingenuous campaign waged by Curran and his cohorts thrust the notion of "conscience" into the mix by stating that individuals could in good conscience dissent from those Church teachings - such as contraception - by which they could not "reasonably" be expected to abide (absent from dissident discussions of conscience, of course, was talk of the need to form one's conscience according to Catholic belief and the role the four cardinal virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude - played in this formation).

In 1976, Detroit hosted the so-called "Call to Action" conference - originally convened for the purpose of addressing post-Vatican II abuses but which was quickly hijacked by post-Vatican II abusers - an event often seen as a starting point for organized dissent among the hundreds of heretical groups that have cropped up since. Make no mistake: these dissident groups - such as Call to Action, the abhorrently-named pro-abortion group Catholics for a Free Choice, Voice of the Faithful (formed after the media coverage of the priest sex abuse scandals in order to exploit public outrage to promote married clergy, women's ordination, and acceptance of homosexual behavior as "remedies" for the crisis), FutureChurch (largely focused on promoting women's ordination, but which is more generally an outlet for radical feminist ideology), the Association of Rights for Catholics in the Church (or ARCC, which is dedicated to destroying the power of the clergy in favor of a "democratic" Church led by dissidents), and yes, Catholics United - exist primarily to confuse the faithful about what the Church truly teaches on matters of faith and morals, to downplay the Church's emphasis on sin and repentance, and to breed distrust of the Magisterium. The ultimate goal of this for most dissenters is to replace the Church founded by Christ with one created on their own image, and which enshrines their warped moral, philosophical, and political views as the new law of God. Others simply want to erase the existence of an entity that is an impediment to the promotion of their agenda.

I would normally be inclined to say that Catholics United falls into the first category, were it not for the fact that I am now familiar with some aspects of its leadership, and am more inclined to believe that the group is an unwitting puppet whose strings are being pulled by more sinister forces that fall into the second category.

Nevertheless, the actions of Catholics United in giving uncritical support to Obama and in trying to give cover to the scandalous actions of the administration of the University of Notre Dame in extending their invitation to Barack Obama are nothing short of a scandal unto themselves, and should be exposed as such. Do not be deceived by Catholics United or other groups into thinking that the Notre Dame commencement controversy is anything less than the scandal that it truly is. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Happy Feast Of The Annunciation!

2009-03-25T18:42:00.001-07:00

What with all the craziness going on lately, we should remember to celebrate important days in the Church liturgical year when they come upon us. As we are now exactly 9 months away from Christmas, the Church has fittingly designated March 25 as the Feast of the Annunciation, during which the archangel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Mother of the imminent Incarnation of Our Lord, and also a commemoration of Mary's "yes." I shared my thoughts on the Incarnation in a previous post, which I encourage you to revisit. I also leave you with the following beautiful image, courtesy of Salve Maria Regina:

Our Lady, Patroness of the Unborn, Ora Pro Nobis.

Happy feast day, and God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

A Notre Dame Alumnus Responds

2009-03-25T18:39:00.000-07:00

As you have probably figured out by now, I'm taking this Notre Dame/Barack Obama commencement scandal quite seriously. Here's another response from a Notre Dame alumnus, courtesy of Youtube:

Beautifully put. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Notre Dame Students Mount Organized Response In Protest Of Obama Invitation

2009-03-25T11:50:00.000-07:00

If I haven't made it clear in previous posts that there are elements of orthodoxy at the University of Notre Dame, then I apologize. I know many good and orthodox people affiliated with the university who are every bit as outraged - if not more so - by the scandal being perpetrated by Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins and his cohorts.

Though the majority of the student body at Notre Dame actually voted for Obama and is supportive of him, there is a sizable minority of students and student groups who have organized a formal, ongoing response to the scandal being waged in the name of their university. You can keep up with this effort by visiting their website.

Notre Dame students are adamant that all efforts should be student or alumni-led, as they have the most intimate knowledge of all the circumstances. I will concede that point. However, I think many of those on the inside looking out do not fully grasp the gravity of the situation outside the university. This is not merely a local scandal, but one that affects the entire Church due to Notre Dame's reputation and status. While I agree that no one from the outside should attempt to usurp local and campus efforts being waged against this scandal, neither should those on the inside denounce efforts from without just because they think that no one on the outside understands all the nuances of the situation. Every Catholic who loves the Church and what she stands for has a personal stake in this matter. As such, all efforts should work with one another and towards the same goal without stepping on one another's toes. And efforts should be waged on different fronts, because no one effort will be able to reach into every segment of the Catholic population.

That said, anyone attempting to exploit the present situation for the primary purpose of gaining personal prestige - whether they be on the inside looking out or on the outside looking in - will do far more harm than good. This includes the architects of the scandal, as well as those who wish to prolong the scandal as a means to draw attention to themselves. I will not here name names: you know who you are, and your Father who is in Heaven sees what is in your heart, even if you refuse to acknowledge that fact. Take that for what it's worth.

For those who recognize this scandal for what it is: get the word out, and support the Notre Dame students in their efforts. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

The Notre Dame Scandal From A Professor's Perspective

2009-03-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting read. The original article link can be found here, courtesy of TheCatholicThing.org (I know very little about this site, so at present I cannot attest to its orthodoxy or lack thereof).

Dr. Ralph McInerney has long been an orthodox voice for Catholics on a variety of matters. He is a co-founder of Crisis magazine, author of numerous books, and in June he will retire from his professorship at Notre Dame after 54 years of teaching philosophy.

Amidst the controversy generated by the Notre Dame/Obama commencement scandal, Dr. McInerney decided to weigh in on the issue. Given his status as an insider and an eyewitness to both the best and the worst that Notre Dame has had to offer these last 50 years (and what a contrast that is!), I am one to pay attention to what he has to say. The article, in its entirety, has been pasted below. Enjoy. God bless!

Is Obama Worth a Mass?
By Ralph McInerny

Now that the abortion president will be honored and feted and listened to at Notre Dame’s commencement, the question becomes, who will say the commencement Mass?

The University of Notre Dame has officially and with much self-satisfaction invited President Barack Obama to address its 2009 graduates and to receive an honorary law degree. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a deliberate thumbing of the collective nose at the Roman Catholic Church to which Notre Dame purports to be faithful. Faithful? Tell it to Julian the Apostate.

That someone who procures or advocates abortion thereby excludes himself from communion with the Church has been clear doctrine all along, and increasingly bishops have found the courage to tell those Catholic politicians who are the great enablers of abortion legislation that they cannot receive Holy Communion. Is it any worse to celebrate such a politician as Barack Obama? So where does that put ND President Father Jenkins? He can hardly say Mass without receiving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so doubtless he will recuse himself and have someone else say the Mass. But to whom will he go? All his cohorts must come under the same cloud as he. Perhaps the pastor of the president’s erstwhile church in Chicago will be invited to harangue the assembled graduates and parents and faculty – those who can bring themselves to attend commencement this year. Why not?

Perhaps because, having been reminded of the sermons he heard over the years, Barack Obama distanced himself, as they say, from the fiery orator at whose feet he sat for decades. In this, whatever his motives, he has perhaps pointed a way for the Notre Dame administrators to redeem themselves. Perhaps they are unaware of Obama’s record on abortion. Perhaps they have not been paying attention to what he has already done as president. On being reminded of all this, and mindful of the parlous position this puts them into vis-a-vis the Church if they thus celebrate the president, perhaps they will as publicly rescind their invitation as they have issued it? Don’t count on it.

For one whose fifty-four year career as a member of the Notre Dame faculty is coming to an end this June, it is a bitter thing to reflect on the 2009 commencement speaker. It is of course convenient to have an excuse to absent oneself from the festivities. Listening to commencement addresses is the penalty that graduates must pay to receive their diplomas. One can count memorable commencement speeches on the cuticle of one finger. They are ceremonial occasions that will be little remembered and less celebrated. One has groaned at previous selections, but the invitation to Barack Obama is far from being the usual effort of the university to get into warm contact with the power figures of the day. It is an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university. And it is in sad continuity with decades of waffling that have led with seeming inevitability to it.

No event was more crucial for Catholic universities than the infamous 1967 Land O’Lakes statement in which the assembled presidents of Catholic institutions declared their freedom from the supposedly baleful influence of Catholic orthodoxy. They would continue to call themselves Catholic, but the definition of the term was constantly under construction. And this by institutions whose task is decidedly not to define what Catholicism is. And now we have come to the point where the University of Notre Dame is publicly excluding itself from allegiance to and acceptance of one of the most fundamental of Christian moral truths, mentioned explicitly in the Didache and again and again over the centuries. Abortion is an essentially evil act, both from the viewpoint of natural morality and from the explicit teaching the Church. There is no way in which an individual, a politician or an institution can finesse that fact.

By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic church on this fundamental matter can be ignored. Lip service may be paid to the teaching on abortion, but it is no impediment to upward mobility, to the truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society, whether on the part of individuals or institutions.

Some years ago, Archbishop Michael Miller in his Vatican capacity as overseer of Catholic education, said in an address at Notre Dame that the Holy Father was considering prohibiting the use of “Catholic” by institutions whose behavior contradicts that use. By inviting Barack Obama to be the 2009 commencement speaker, Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university. It invites an official rebuke. May it come.

Ralph McInerny is a writer of philosophy, fiction, and cultural criticism, who has taught at Notre Dame since 1955.

Fr. Jenkins Confirms Intention To Give Scandal To The Catholic Faithful, Says Obama "Honors" Notre Dame By Accepting Invitation To Speak At Graduation

2009-03-23T16:25:00.000-07:00

The article is from Lifenews.com. It seems that Notre Dame President Fr. John I. Jenkins is intent on going through with this, and says he is honored by Barack Obama's acceptance. Like most who try to give cover to enemies of the faith, he says he hopes this will create an opportunity for "dialogue."

I think it is time that people stopped making excuses for Fr. Jenkins. Whatever platitudes or token gestures he may offer to satiate orthodox Notre Dame students, faculty, and alumni no longer give credence to the notion that he is genuinely interested in restoring the university's Catholic identity.

I, for one, believe that the university would be better off with a President who places the spiritual well-being of the students above the financial health and prestige of the university. It is time for Fr. Jenkins to resign. If he will not do so, then it is time for the Board of Trustees to remove him and replace him with someone who recognizes the true mission of a Catholic university. And if the Board of Trustees will not do so, then I think it is time for higher authorities to consider whether or not the University of Notre Dame should be allowed to continue to give scandal under the guise of a Catholic institution of higher learning.

I know that many of my friends who are either attending or have graduated from the University of Notre Dame will take exception to my stance on this matter; but there is no nuancing this scandalous behavior. Barack Obama is an enemy of the Catholic Church, and should never be afforded a forum by a Catholic institution to legitimize his anti-Catholic stances in the eyes of the faithful.

This is not a call to action on my part. At least, not yet. I am aware that a great many efforts are currently underway both inside and outside the Notre Dame community, and I am content for now to join my voice to theirs. However, I will not allow anyone to deceive me into thinking that this is anything less than a failing of moral courage and leadership on the part of Fr. John I. Jenkins, and any efforts now being mounted to protest Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame's 2009 commencement ceremonies must include calls to hold Fr. Jenkins accountable for this decidedly anti-Catholic action. Feel free to express agreement or disagreement on the matter. I would like to know where others stand on this. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Notre Dame To Have Barack Obama As Commencement Speaker: Only The Latest In A Long Line Of Scandals

2009-03-21T08:18:00.000-07:00

When Fr. John I. Jenkins was elected President of the University of Notre Dame on April 30, 2004, it was hoped that he would take decisive action against dissident factions within the university, something his two predecessors were unwilling to do. Several friends of mine were among those who expressed great optimism over the new administration; and indeed, Fr. Jenkins' inaugural address in 2005 served only to fuel that optimism. The leadership page of Notre Dame's website includes the following quote from that inaugural address:

"If we are clear in our purpose, we will excel in our ideals. This will be my priority and my passion as President of Notre Dame."

It took all of one scandal to call Fr. Jenkins' priorities and passions into question.

For years, the university had been allowing an annual production of the vulgar play "The Vagina Monologues" to be held on campus. I'll let you find out about this play on your own, if you dare: there are standards for what I will and will not say on this blog. A growing faction of students were expressing outrage that such a play would be allowed in a Catholic setting, and they appealed to Fr. Jenkins to put and end to this atrocity. On the other side, Fr. Jenkins was under increasing pressure from a number of dissident factions to leave things as they were. This included a large number of faculty members who allegedly threatened to resign if Fr. Jenkins banned the play from campus. I know many good and decent Catholic administrators who would have welcomed such a golden opportunity to rid themselves of so many negative influences in one fell swoop. Instead, Fr. Jenkins betrayed the students who had placed their trust in him to restore the Catholic identity of the university with a "compromise": the sponsoring department would decide for itself whether or not to hold the event on campus, but would be required to have a "dialogue" afterwards in which all sides were presented. Conveniently, Fr. Jenkins left it to the department to decide how best to represent each point of view.

In making this decision, Fr. Jenkins effectively invited all dissidents to run roughshod over him for the remainder of his term as President.

What faith remained in Fr. Jenkins' commitment to restore the Catholic identity of Notre Dame university after that debacle has all but evaporated after he allowed the most anti-Catholic President in U.S. history to be invited as the 2009 commencement speaker. The scandal this propagates goes well beyond giving a forum to a moral degenerate like Barack Obama. Obama will, without a doubt, use this opportunity to show his "great support" for the Catholic Church, and in so doing will deceive many poorly informed Catholics into thinking that he supports their Catholic beliefs.

Notre Dame has long been regarded as the "flagship" Catholic university in the United States. Many poorly catechized and poorly informed Catholics still regard the actions and statements of this university as being representative of Catholic higher education and Catholic belief and practice. It simply does not occur to them that a university with a Catholic charter does not in fact teach authentic Catholicism in the classroom or promote authentic Catholic ideals in the public square. Notre Dame has long had elements within its faculty that have been promoting a suspect theology; this is a problem that goes back at least to the 1950s, if not earlier. It was then-President Fr. Theodore Hesburgh who, in 1967, spearheaded the efforts of 26 Catholic university Presidents to draft and sign the infamous Land 'O Lakes Statement, which purported to be a statement on the need for academic freedom in the Catholic university (which the Church has never opposed, provided that a clear distinction is made between what is and is not in keeping with Catholic belief and practice), but is in fact a declaration of independence from any accountability to the Magisterium for what is taught in the classroom. Dissidents have long embraced this statement as an excuse to promote outright heresy in the classroom in the name of "academic freedom," and often use it as a staging point to criticize the late Pope John Paul II's wonderful 1990 Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (which, among other things, reiterated the need for Catholic university theology professors to comply with Canon 812 of the 1983 revision to the Code of Canon Law: namely, that all such professors are to have a mandate, or mandatum, from their local bishop by which they agree not to misrepresent Catholic belief and practice in the classroom). It is also in the name of "academic freedom" that Fr. Jenkins has allowed both "The Vagina Monologues" and Barack Obama to bring their views to campus under the guise of authentic Catholicism.

Those who speak loudest about "academic freedom" - such as Fr. Richard McBrien, a notoriously dissident professor at Notre Dame and a blight on Catholic theology - are usually the ones most intent on undermining it, as they speak only of freedom for themselves to teach and promote what they please, without thought of the academic freedom to which the student is entitled: namely, the right to know what is and is not authentic Catholic belief and practice and the right to not be subjected to deception or be taught errors by those who are tasked with educating them. But then, dissidents never concern themselves with what is in the best interests of anybody besides themselves.

If you would like to find out more about this brewing scandal, and would like to join in a petition to stop Barack Obama from being the commencement speaker at Notre Dame, please click here. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Self Professed "Catholic" Professor Wants To Impeach The Pope

2009-03-19T18:46:00.000-07:00

Apparently, this man believes that the Church is greatly sinning through its opposition to birth control and prohibition against women's ordination, and believes Benedict XVI should be replaced with a contraception-friendly woman. He believes that advocacy of contraception is a pro-life position, and find's Benedict's opposition to the use of condoms in Africa an unpardonable crime against humanity. I hope I needn't elaborate on this man's profound ignorance any further.

In my experience, people who react with such vitriol against the condemnation of an immoral act are usually engaging in said immoral act. I hope, for the sake of this "man of learning," that this is not here the case.

I don't usually dignify such hyper-emotional drivel. Actually, I'm not dignifying this instance of it either. I merely hold this sophomoric rant up as an example of how amusing it can be when a forum is provided to a theological and moral illiterate who assumes his knowledge of the will of God surpasses that of the Pope.

Robert S. McElvaine, may God have mercy on your soul, for the one whose lead you are currently following most certainly will not.

Speaking of Corrine Brown...

2009-03-17T07:15:00.000-07:00

She has represented Florida's 3rd Congressional District since 1993, and has run unopposed for the seat since at least 1998. In the past two elections, the option of voting for or against her has not even been offered on my voting ballots, a fact that causes me great concern as I believe that voters should always be afforded the opportunity to vote for or against their elected officials. That there is not even an option for a write-in vote seems to me a gross violation of our voting rights.

Anyone who read my previous post and saw the video contained therein will not be surprised to learn that Corrine Brown has refused to debate all of the challengers to her congressional seat. She has never needed to. Florida's 3rd congressional district is so heavily gerrymandered that it runs from northeast Florida all the way down into north central Florida. The district's constituents are overwhelmingly Democrat in their party affiliation and a vast majority of them happen to share Brown's ethnicity. Brown would gain nothing by debating an opponent, and would stand to lose a great deal if her constituents ever learned just how woefully inadequate her grasp happens to be on issues that matter to them.

I found a few more Youtube videos that put Corrine Brown's oratorical skills on display. If you can stomach listening to the following 4 clips (the first 3 show her Democrat partisanship, the fourth reveals her tendency to use her position for personal gain), be sure to wince at the knowledge that this woman has a bachelor's degree, 2 master's degrees, an honorary doctorate, and that she served on the faculty of one of the colleges from which she graduated. Let that serve as a well-deserved indictment on the quality (or lack thereof) of the American public education system.

First, on her opposition to the Iraq troop surge, which quickly degenerates into a rant about how Bush misled her and her fellow congressmen (never mind that Congress had access to the same information Bush did at the time of the decision to go to war):

Second, on her support for minimum wage increases, which quickly segues into an assault on the Bush economy. Note the embarrassing moment where her ignorance of House parliamentary procedure is also put on display:

Here, she advocates for voting rights for individuals who stand under indictment for felony crimes. This rant ends with her infamous accusation of a "coup d'etat" in the 2000 Presidential election (I wonder what she would have done had the stenographer asked her to spell coup d'etat):

Finally, this is a local news story from last August about Brown's use of her position to secure preferential treatment for herself from emergency responders when Tropical Storm Fay hit Jacksonville:

And this all before I even mention her 100% pro-abortion voting record according to NARAL, her support for embryonic stem cell research, and her support for gay marriage, to state just a few of her many anti-Catholic stances.

I can only pray that at some point Corrine Brown's constituents can rouse themselves enough to look beyond the color of her skin and the "D" next to her name and see how poorly her presence in Washington reflects upon their ability to make an informed decision.

This, Ladies And Gentlemen, Is Who Represents My Home District

2009-03-16T16:53:00.000-07:00

Normally, I'd welcome the opportunity to hear anyone praise the Florida Gator football team, especially on their 2008 BCS national championship. However, the desire to hear such praise has its limits. Case in point: the following full frontal assault on the sense of hearing and on the English language. Sadly, such assaults are regularly perpetrated by my Congresswoman, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), a reliable vote for the culture of death and the forces of socialism:

Now, please allow yourself some time to take an online IQ test. If your IQ has dropped by 5 or more points, then I humbly apologize...

I think the following excerpt from The Sporting News blog post, Rep. Brown Gradulates Gators on BS Title, pretty much says it all:

"Where to begin: first there's the robe, some kind of Druidic orange and blue sacrificial cowl I've never seen in the Florida bookstore that she wore just for the occasion of stabbing the English language in the chest in just three minutes of speech. Then she "gradulates" the "Gator" on their national championship, especially "Curch Urban Meyers" and "Percy Harvey," who played "gustily." Everyone showed good "sportmanship," though, and then she ends with an incomprehensible Gator cheer I believe she improvised on the spot."

The blogger forgot to reference - or else chose not to dignify - Rep. Brown's assertion that "it is clear that the Gators are superb to any other schools with the conferences that we play in" (college football teams cannot have more than one conference affiliation), but I think you get the point.

After Barack Obama, Corrine Brown is quite possibly the most severe price the American people have to pay for refusing to be an informed electorate.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I bid you adieu. Having to watch that video has given me a headache...

Kathleen Sebelius' "Pro-Choice" Incoherence

2009-03-11T14:19:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article from Michael Gerson picking apart Sebelius' "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose" psychobabble on the issue of abortion.

A reminder: when someone says they are "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose," they usually mean "personally supportive, and hell-bent on imposing."

Similarly, anytime someone says that they seek to "reduce the number of abortions," and prescribe support for a pro-abort politician as the means by which to do this, they are insulting your intelligence. If the pro-aborts didn't respect your inherent right to make it out of the womb against your mother's wishes when you were a baby, why expect them to respect your right to act against their wishes today?

See the example of the subterfuge perpetrated by Catholics United - who not coincidentally supports Kathleen Sebelius for HHS secretary (and whose Director of Organization campaigned on her behalf when she ran for governor of Kansas) - as detailed in the previous post. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Behind the Scenes of "Catholics United"

2009-03-08T18:42:00.000-07:00

I've been hearing for a few months now about yet another group that falsely promotes itself as authentically and faithfully Catholic, while using this deception to assail pro-life politicians who oppose health care and welfare initiatives sponsored by the pro-abortion political left even as it gives cover to pro-abortion politicians for decidedly non-Catholic stances on the far more important right to life issues. Catholics United - not to be confused with the Steubenville, OH based Catholics United for the Faith or any group that actually defends Catholic doctrines from political assault - originally began in 2004 as the Catholic Voting Project, a supposedly non-partisan group whose thinly-veiled primary objective was to convince faithful Catholics that they could in good conscience vote for John Kerry. The group changed its name to Catholics United in 2005, and has ever since devoted itself to promoting a social justice agenda that is in keeping with the tenets of liberation theology. For those who don't know, liberation theology is an ideology that cherry picks certain aspects of Catholic teaching on social justice, but also heavily incorporates elements of Marxism. What this does in practice is cause adherents of liberation theology to strive for liberation from earthly forms of suffering and oppression (such as slavery and poverty), which in and of itself is a worthy endeavor, but not when done to the detriment or exclusion of striving for the far more important goal of eternal liberation from the shackles of sin (a liberation already won for us by Jesus Christ through His death and resurrection, but which is not forced upon us if we choose through our words and actions to reject that which is of God). A more detailed and far more eloquent dissertation on this problematic topic has already been expressed, and by no less a person than the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. His instruction, given in 1984 when he was Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, can be found here.

In a nutshell, adherents of liberation theology spend most of their time trying to reconcile Catholic belief with socialist ideology. This is more than a touch ironic, since liberation theology advocates tend to accuse orthodox Catholics of placing politics ahead of faith anytime there is an attempt to hold a politician accountable for views on right to life issues that are incompatible with Catholic belief and practice.

It was this tendency that led to a very brief but interesting Facebook instant message chat yesterday between me and an old friend from my days as an undergraduate at the University of Florida. I will share some of the details of this conversation only because of their relevance to this post: indeed, this chat served as the primary inspiration for this post, with all due to respect to my friend, whose agenda runs quite counter to my own. When I knew him, this friend was very involved with the Gainesville, FL chapter of Pax Christi USA, a dissident Catholic group committed to the ideals of liberation theology, and a group with whose members I had an unusually large number of heated exchanges both on matters of politics and on matters of faith (I quickly learned that for them, there was no distinguishing between the two). As it turns out, this friend is now one of the driving forces behind Catholics United; and though I did not know this at the time of the chat, the knowledge certainly put the conversation into proper perspective.

Now, prior to this chat, I had not had any formal contact with this friend in nearly ten years. I found him on Facebook and sent him a friend request a few weeks back, which he eventually accepted. Yesterday, however, it was he who initiated the chat; and as I soon found out, the reason for the contact was to take me to task for a Facebook status update in which I said that Barack Obama was putting the "con" back in "economy" (depending on what ideology suits you, you either understand the sentiment or you don't, so I'll not elaborate further on the point). He began by saying that as we strive for holiness, we cannot let go of Charity and goodwill. This is certainly true enough on the face of it, though it seemed an odd way to greet someone you have not spoken with in ten years. I expressed my agreement, though sensing that he was approaching this truth from a different perspective, I felt compelled to remind him that Charity is first and foremost a love of God above all things and for his own sake, and that a necessary part of loving God in such a way is to hate the devil and his evil works (I also stressed that a person's being and a person's actions are two distinct things; and if the action is sinful, one is morally obligated to love the sinner but hate the sin). His response to this, quite frankly, came across as thuggish:

"amen. now lay off obama"

As you might well imagine, this directive did not sit well with me, though I managed a laugh at the irony of the situation: I was at the time watching (on DVD) the scene from "The Godfather" where Tom Hagen was making the owner of a soon-to-be-decapitated horse "an offer that he cannot refuse." Because of my Catholic faith, I have a moral obligation to oppose Barack Obama's agenda, especially as it relates to right to life issues and the promotion of a socialist agenda, since he runs counter to Catholic belief on both counts. I pointed out that I cannot cease my criticism, as it would contradict what I had just said to him (namely, that charity demands opposition to agendas that run counter to the belief and practice of the faith handed down to us by Jesus Christ). For my refusal to cease and desist, I was promptly admonished: "put your faith before your politics." Again, with respect to my friend, my finding humor with ironic statements and the lack of a sense of irony on the part of those making such statements has its limits. This comment reeks of rank hypocrisy, plain and simple. My response was: "always have, always will."

It is not a coincidence that Catholics United feels such an overwhelming need to silence criticism of Obama. As Catholics United embraces beliefs rooted in liberation theology, and Barack Obama's 20+ year tryst with organized religion came at the feet of a man (Jeremiah Wright) whose beliefs are themselves rooted in black liberation theology (which is, needless to say, an outgrowth of liberation theology), the political and religious beliefs of Barack Obama and Catholics United are very closely intertwined. Criticism of the agenda of one is, for all intents and purposes, tantamount to criticism of the agenda of the other; and neither suffers criticism of their agenda lightly (Obama is, bar none, the thinnest-skinned politician I have ever witnessed in action). The implication by my friend that being a Catholic of charity and goodwill requires a refrain from criticism of Obama and his agenda certainly reinforces the point, as does Catholics United's own blog, which shows marked intolerance of the freedom of expression of anyone who levels criticism at Catholics United itself.

My friend went on to quote an unlinked and uncredited article from L'Osservatore Romano praising Obama for allegedly promoting a "pressing resurgence of the values of solidarity" following "a decade of exaltation of individual enrichment." I asked for the full article (for context) and the name of the individual to whom these quotes could be attributed (also for context), and was told that since L'Osservatore Romano is the official publication of the Vatican (which it is) that the source was likely either Benedict XVI or his Secretary of State (highly unlikely, as the article would be quick to attribute any quotes to such highly-placed sources). I once again pressed for the full article and name of the source, and was given neither.

The rest of the conversation was little more than him harping on Obama's promotion of health care and welfare, my stating that this pales in comparison to Obama's anti-Catholic stance on life issues, his ignoring me and returning to the issues of health care and welfare, my reiterating that the life issues are paramount, his asking me to give a clearer outline of Church teaching on health care and welfare, and my telling him to stop throwing red herring arguments out there to try to distract from the far more important life issues, at which point he chose to end the discussion (with a final reminder from me that there is no getting around the fact that certain issues carry greater moral weight than others. As it turns out, I should have emphasized this all the more, given Catholics United's attempts to apply a "seamless garment" approach whereby right to life issues and issues of stewardship carry equal moral weight. It makes sense now that my friend did not want to address that aspect of our discussion.)

Catholics United has long been critical of individuals and groups who set themselves ideologically against Catholics United. For a member of the group, then, to tell me that I was wrong to do the same with someone whose beliefs stand in opposition to my Catholic faith is an unfortunate testament to the one-sided nature of politically correct discourse. I have never been one to abide by the demands of political correctness. I'm certainly not about to start now.

I would like to issue a formal challenge today to my friend. I would like to call him out publicly and debate him on the merits of a Catholic case both for and against support of Barack Obama and his agenda, with consideration given both to the issues that are of importance to Catholics and to the moral weight that such issues hold. I believe that if my friend honestly believes that Catholics should be uncritical and supportive of our President's agenda, then he will welcome the opportunity to make his case in a public forum; and as such, he would also welcome the further exposure that such a forum would bring to Catholics United. I eagerly await a response.