How Would You Read This In Terms Of Abortion?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'm curious: how does one secure the blessings of liberty to a posterity that one allows to be killed in the womb? Or even imagine that the author of that Preamble could possibly see abortion as consistent with his stated reasons for helping to ordain and establish the Constitution in the first place?

It's amazing how much self-delusion a person has to engage in to find legal and moral justification for such a barbaric practice...

Relativism And The Pursuit Of Novelty

"With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race."

- Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already, in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after."

- Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 (RSV Bible)

In today's day and age, it is virtually impossible to go through an entire hour - to say nothing of an entire day - without hearing someone, somewhere, speak of the need for change, whether that change is of a personal, communal, social, political, economic, physical, psychological, or spiritual nature, and everything in between. It has gotten to the point where people speak of change simply for variety's sake. This is unfortunate because change, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. There are indeed many things in the present day that are in dire need of change, particular in the realm of morality. Of course, sometimes the only kind of change necessary is a return to the very things that those who clamored for change steered us away from in the first place.

The desire for change in man is natural. We are all in a naturally restless state that is born from a desire to be reconciled with God. As St. Augustine so succinctly put it: "My heart is restless, O God, until it rests in Thee." Ideally, we orient ourselves towards God throughout the course of our lives as a natural manifestation of our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth; and if there were no other factors to stop us, that is indeed how man would always orient himself. However, there are indeed other factors, all of whom have their root in the same source: namely, the evil one.

How, exactly, does this tie in to the title of this post? Simple: the most effective way that the devil distracts man from his natural inclination towards God is through the spread of heresy. One particularly pernicious heresy, known as Modernism - which has its roots in the philosophical Liberalism that itself was an outgrowth of the virulently anti-religious secular humanism of the Enlightenment - was described by Pope St. Pius X as "the synthesis of all heresies" in his landmark encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This description flows from St. Pius' assertion that Modernism embraces every heresy that came before. As such, it is difficult to give a succinct definition of the theory of Modernism. A good place to start is with the very definition of the word, which literally means an exaggerated love for what is modern, for modern ideas, and for the general "spirit of the age." This leads to a tendency to disregard all that has come before (a classic example being the way in which present-day "Catholic" dissenters disregard all that came before Vatican II even as they work to distort the documents of Vatican II itself to conform to modern secular notions), and with that the tendency to "rediscover" centuries-old notions and pass them off as new.

A natural - and highly unfortunate - consequence of such shortsighted thinking is the belief that truth must necessarily conform itself to the "spirit of the age." This is a form of Relativism, which denies the existence of objective, timeless truth - and thus necessarily denies the existence of the Eternal Truth - and which is very possibly the worst consequence of the Modernist heresy.

Which brings us to the point of this post. It is no coincidence that those who are most preoccupied with the pursuit of novelty are the very same who have yet to discover or acknowledge the fact that the most important truths are not subject to majority votes or recent trends in human thought. They seek novelties as a way to fill the void in their lives, to relieve the natural longing they feel but which they are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge. They continue to look for the perpetual quick fix, distracting themselves with things which for them are new. Again, there is nothing new under the sun, but this timeless truth is rejected by Relativists. If it is new to them, then it is new, as for them truth is based on personal experience - an idea very much in keeping with the spirit of the modern age. And as the novelty of one thing wears off, they abandon it to pursue the next new thing. Oscar Wilde - whose pursuit of novelty manifested itself in increasingly vulgar acts of sodomy, resulting in his eventual imprisonment and the ruin of his literary career - cynically quipped that he read St. Augustine's Confessions so he could discover new sins to commit (reading St. Augustine appears to have had some beneficial effect, as Wilde pursued one other "novelty" few other Relativists pursue: a deathbed conversion to Catholicism).

We see the effects that the pursuit of novelty has wrought on modern society. People who pursue cheap thrills find themselves over the course of time having to do more and more for less and less satisfaction. The Howard Sterns of the world - the so-called "shock jocks" - have to commit increasingly more outrageous acts just to maintain the attention of a quickly jaded audience. The pursuit of sex for pleasure's sake results in the dissociation of the unitive (love-giving) meaning from the procreative (life-giving) meaning of sex, and in the process both of these aspects of the sexual gift are severely impaired (one need only see the skyrocketing divorce rates and nearly 50 million aborted babies in the last generation alone to see just how devastating the introduction of the pill and so-called "worry-free sex" has been for modern society); and as the pleasure derived from so-called "recreational sex" becomes less and less satisfying, sex between uncommitted partners has taken on more perverse forms as people try to get more "creative" in order to achieve the same fleeting sense of satisfaction. This because man has become convinced that the most important aspect of the sexual gift is the physical pleasure it gives (the selfish aspect), rather than the emotional bond it creates between a married man and woman and the manifestation this bond takes in the creation of new life (the selfless aspects). Two guesses as to who did the convincing...

What, exactly, does St. Pius refer to when he speaks of the rejection of the legacy of the human race? He refers to the gift of redemption purchased through the Precious Blood of Christ, and the promise of salvation that this gift entails. Rather than pursue the fleeting novelties the devil throws in our path to divert us from our goal, let us pursue the One novelty that is eternal, and never fleeting. Let us pursue the path that leads to reconciliation with God. Let us not waste the most precious of all gifts, purchased for us freely by the One who loves us most. And if we are to pursue any change in our lives, let it be a change that leads to further sanctification, for any other kind of change is of this world, and by definition fleeting. God bless!



In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Pray, Pray, Pray...

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
If present trends continue, on the morning of November 5, 2008 America - and the world - will awaken to find itself facing one of the most dire of moral crises we have seen in a very long time. I am not prepared to say that the United States as we know it will be destroyed, but if Barack Obama wins the Presidency, the Democrats reach a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi is allowed access to this nation's purse-strings with NO restraints on her, we will be in a world of trouble. America has faced greater trials, to be sure: we have, after all, survived a Civil War. But one thing the United States had in 1860 in far greater quantities than it has in 2008 is the strong moral and religious fiber that allowed it to overcome its problems and move forward. With the havoc that Modernism, Communism, Relativism, and various other -isms have wrought in the world's political, philosophical, and religious ideologies, man simply is not as inclined to turn to God in these times of crisis as he was more than a century ago (mind you, Catholicism is not a religious ideology of this world, but the world has succeeded in creating widespread confusion about what the Church teaches and Who is at the root of those teachings).
Even if the 2010 midterm elections prove disastrous for the Democrats and Republicans are swept into power in both houses of Congress, consider the kind of damage that the unholy Trinity of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi can cause in two short years:

- 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.


The list goes on and on. We know from personal experience, history, and Catholic teaching that if you give the devil an inch, he will take a mile (and then scream to the press that you shortchanged him and have you successfully branded as the greedy one). So why allow a foot in the door (to the White House) to a man (Barack Obama) whose path to the top was inspired by a man (Saul Alinsky) who once acknowledged the need to thank Lucifer for showing radicals how to successfully get their way against "the establishment"?

Look, I'm no fan of John McCain. I voted against him in the primary; and if I thought he would win Florida handily in the national election, I would probably write in someone else's name (Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin, anyone?). But for those of you who are easily taken in by platitudes about "hope" and "change" and are seriously considering voting for Barack Hussein Obama, think long and hard about what your vote could potentially visit upon all of us.

Let us be eternally grateful that the one battle that really matters has already been won; and let us pray and do our part to make sure that as many people as possible convert to the winning side. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Thought For The Day

The difference between a fool and a wise man is that a fool thinks he's a wise man, whereas a wise man knows he's a fool.

The Bill Maher Effect: When Fools Impart Their Imagined Wisdom

I first posted this on my Facebook page a few months back, when Bill Maher was suffering from spotlight withdrawal and so decided to launch into yet another of his characteristically infantile rants against Catholicism (in this case, repeating the provably false allegation that Pope Benedict XVI was a Nazi in his youth and painting all priests as unrepetentant child molesters). I repost it now in anticipation of the storm of criticism he is likely to receive for his coming straw man amateur video, Religulous:


LET'S STOP GIVING BILL MAHER EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS

You know that adolescent relative who didn't get spanked enough as a child who feels the occasional need to do something infantile just to be the center of attention? You know, the spoiled brat who feels the need to occasionally lash out at those who didn't give him everything his little heart desired during the "Mine! Mine! Mine!" phase of his life (a phase which may or may not still be in progress)?

You ever notice that little juvenile delinquent smiling to himself when everyone suddenly makes a big fuss over him after he goes and does something stupid?

Take a look at Bill Maher, and you might recognize him.

Let's not kid ourselves. He is absolutely reveling in all the attention he's receiving. The worst that'll happen to him is that he'll get fired by HBO (I wouldn't hold my breath), in which case he'll quickly land on his feet with some other far-left broadcasting entity with an ax to grind against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular (and likely owned by Ted Turner).

Don't get me wrong. I support the current movement to boycott HBO and have Bill Maher removed from the air. I'm just saying that we should remember to keep this in the proper context. The only people who take Bill Maher seriously are those who were predisposed to take the latest of Maher's many anti-Catholic diatribes seriously (they can usually be identified by their Oscar trophies, their Nobel prizes, and the prescription anti-depressants they consume at 10-20 times the recommended dosage).

Let's do our part to dwindle Bill Maher's available outlets for his illogical, slanderous drivel and hold his employers accountable for giving him said outlets. But let's not lose our heads in the process. To do so is to ascribe a level of relevance to Bill Maher that he neither possesses nor deserves. And that is exactly what he wants.

How Many Things Are Wrong With This Article?

I don't generally care to call attention to monumental acts of idiocy, but Obama-Biden supporter John W. Mashek - a liberal editorialist for U.S. News and one of a disturbingly large number of dissenters who, despite having no clue what being Catholic actually entails, insist on identifying themselves by the oxymoronic label "pro-choice Catholic" - came out with a puff piece yesterday that presents an interesting case in study, as it makes liberal (pun intended) use of virtually every logical fallacy employed by those who are ignorant of the role of the Catholic hierarchy in the shepherding of souls (and who, not coincidentally, have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church). This kind of tripe truly has to be read to be believed, so I have pasted the article in its entirety below (the original link can be found here).

BEGIN ARTICLE

"Abortion, Catholic Sex Scandals, the Bishop of Scranton, and Joe Biden's Communion
By John Mashek
Posted September 23, 2008

Once again, the emotionally charged issue of abortion has penetrated a presidential campaign, especially among Roman Catholic voters.

The bishop of Scranton, Pa., home to a strong conservative Catholic population, has forbidden Sen. Joe Biden, a Scranton native, from receiving communion in his hometown.

Biden, like 14 other Democrats in the Senate, is both pro-choice and Catholic. So the bishop decreed that the party's vice presidential candidate was not welcome at the communion rail. These Senate Democrats and many other Catholics—including this writer—do not necessarily favor abortion, but we do not feel our religious views should be foisted on others in a nation where church and state are divided.

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. is the only Senate Democratic Catholic who is against abortion rights. Yet, he voted last year with the others on a bill that would have overturned the "Mexico City policy," which prohibits U.S. foreign aid for organizations that provide abortions. (Casey's late father, Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey, was also against abortion rights, and in 1992 Democrats made a big mistake by not allowing him to speak at the Democratic convention. He should have been heard. In 2008, the younger Casey did address the convention.)

In the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts felt the wrath of some Catholic organizations for favoring abortion rights. A few prelates of the church said Kerry and other lawmakers who agreed with him should not receive communion.

As a Catholic since birth and one raised by a devout Irish Catholic mother, I have serious problems with my church on this matter.

I admit it relates in large part to the pedophilia scandals that have ripped the church in recent years. Many priests (roughly 5,000 were accused) have been found to have abused young males and young girls, some of them altar boys. For years, the problem was hidden from public view, with priests routinely sent to other parishes without warning the new church—and certainly without informing the authorities. Some cardinals were even involved, and they were, in my view, committing criminal acts as conspirators.

For the record, rape and child molestation are crimes. Covering it up is a crime. Abortion is not a crime because of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

More than $1 billion in church and insurance money has been paid to victims of pedophilia and their families for the suffering they endured. Most of the victims were youngsters who looked on priests as moral guardians and were afraid to even tell their parents.

In the past few years, but too slowly for me, the church has attempted to get rid of these men and prevent such an outrage from taking place again. Pope Benedict, in his trip to the United States earlier this year, talked forcefully about the personal sorrow he felt about this outrage.

Is it any wonder, though, that some of us resent this bishop in Scranton telling Biden he could not receive communion? He had to know it would hit the national news.

That division of church and state has application here. No priest, minister, or rabbi should be telling the flock how to vote or for whom. Some do, and they are wrong.

The Knights of Columbus, in a harsh attack on Biden in a full-page ad on September 19 in USA Today, said in sum: "Your unwillingness to bring your Catholic moral views into the public policy arena on this issue alone is troubling." Here's an answer to the Knights: Every survey in recent years shows that at least half the Catholics in the United States are pro-choice. I assume you would like to read us out of the church. I will not let you dictate to me on public policy, nor should Senator Biden.

In earlier days, the Catholic vote was strongly Democratic, largely among working-class citizens in urban areas. There has been a remarkable shift to the GOP in recent elections, and Sen. John McCain, the party's nominee, is certain to get strong Catholic support from conservatives in the church. Abortion is not the only reason, but it will be a significant factor.

Whether Joe Biden is allowed to receive communion in his hometown may not seem like a big event in this fall campaign, yet it is important and disturbing to this Catholic."

END ARTICLE

Like so many others have in recent years, Mashek uses the sex abuse scandal as a scapegoat for his real prejudices against the Church (and like every other person who seems more interested in tarnishing the Church's reputation than in getting to the truth of the matter, Mashek prefers to cite the number of priests accused, but says nothing of how many of the accused have been found guilty of wrongdoing or - as is far more likely to be the case - exonerated). In fact, if one goes by what is written in the article - Mashek's own words - the entire basis of his disagreement with the Church's opposition to abortion supporters giving scandal to the faithful through sacrilegious Communion seems to be the fact that 5,000 priests have been accused of sexual abuse of minors and some members of the hierarchy were involved in covering it up, and the Church did not react to it as quickly as he would have liked.

Going by this logic, then, Mashek must really have it in for the teaching profession, since incidents of teacher sex abuse are far more prevalent on a per capita basis than they are in the priesthood. I look forward to Mashek's article discussing his opposition to the NEA's agenda based on that entity's lack of a strong stance against the problem of teacher sex abuse. I'll know it's coming because it will be immediately preceded by the one in which he confesses that it was he, and not the midi-chlorians, who fathered Anakin Skywalker.

A few more fallacies to point out:

- The fact that Bob Casey Jr. supports repeal of the Mexico City Policy logically contradicts Mashek's assertion that Casey opposes abortion rights (so does Casey's unabashed support of the most radically pro-abortion Presidential candidate in American history, but I digress...)

- Biden, like 14 other Democrats in the Senate, is pro-abortion and are by virtue of that fact latae sententiae excommunicates, and therefore not part of the communion of the Church's faithful.

- Mashek claims that the "separation of Church and state" keeps him from wanting to impose his religious views on the rest of the country. Increasingly, this unwillingness seems to apply only to opposition of abortion. It certainly does not seem apply when it comes to imposing abortion on an unreceptive populace, which I assure you is about as fervently religious a tenet as the political left embraces. So remind me: why am I not supposed to take it as an insult to my intelligence when you tell me you are "personally opposed to abortion, but unwilling to impose your views on others" when such a position would logically dictate that you abstain from voting on abortion-related issues, rather that having a perfect voting record that directly contradicts your purported "personal opposition"?

- Mashek makes the argument that the Catholic Church is more criminal in its behavior than pro-aborts based on current laws regarding the criminality of sex abuse and the legality of abortion, and lets the argument hang as if to imply that this somehow makes the Church more morally corrupt than abortion supporters. Like most dissenters, Mashek seems to think that human lawmakers have more of a say in what is right and what is wrong than does the Divine Lawmaker Himself. He also uses the argument that half of American Catholics are "pro-choice." OK. All that means is that half of American Catholics hold a view that is in direct contradiction to the Church to which they claim to belong. Only those who do so in ignorance of the Church's position have any legitimate claim to still being Catholic.

- Mashek implies that the legitimate exercise of a Bishop's right to direct a self-described Catholic to refrain from receiving Communion while causing grave scandal to the faithful is somehow an endorsement of a political candidate and a breach of the wall that separates Church and state. Little wonder that he criticizes the Bishop of Scranton for this decidedly Catholic stance: those words could just as easily apply to Mashek himself for the grave scandal he gives to the faithful in writing this atrocity of an article.


There are other things to point out. I shall leave it to any readers out there to comment on them. I pray this message finds you well. Pray for this election, and pray for a conversation of the souls of unfaithful pseudo-Catholics like Joe Biden and John Mashek. It is hard enough to spread the Gospel truth without having to deal with their counterproductive seeds of confusion. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

What is a "Community Organizer"?

Hello all,
I know posting has been a bit less frequent lately, I hope to be able to get back to posting more regularly as time progresses. Please keep me in prayer, as there are some periods of transition that lay ahead of me: some good, some not so good.

In the meantime, I just thought I'd share this video I found on Youtube. I've made mention a few times of the name Saul Alinsky, the so-called "Father of Community Organizing" (you can read my original post on Alinsky here). Among other things, Alinsky was a known associate of Frank Nitti, Al Capone, and other members of the 1930's Chicago criminal underground, and was also a known collaborator with the Communist Party in the United States. Alinsky's life and thought were such a great influence to Barack Obama that Obama actually chose to move to Chicago and become a community organizer in order to follow in Alinsky's footsteps.

In the following Youtube video, we are given a bit more insight into just what Obama's career as a community organizer entailed. Pay special attention to what is said about Alinsky and also what is said about Obama's connection to the notorious group ACORN, which in press releases has proudly identified Obama as one of its own (without any argument from Obama) and which is currently under indictment in seven states for voter registration fraud relating to the 2004 and 2006 election cycles (with more indictments likely to come).

It's a comfort to know that if Obama becomes President, he can draw upon his vast experience as a disciple of the Saul Alinsky model of "community organizing" to get enemy dictators voted out of office by finding a handful of that country's dissidents (or, as dictators commonly refer to them, "victims of unfortunate accidents"), whipping them into a frenzy with empty promises of undefined "change", and then getting them to vote 20,000,000 times apiece. All he has to do is wait for those dictators to hold their regularly-scheduled democratic elections.

Oh, wait...

2 Great Articles

Good morning all,
I wanted to direct your attention to two great articles I read recently. I strongly encourage you take the time to read them both:

Why The Left Hates Sarah Palin - I haven't really commented on the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice-Presidential choice. I still would have preferred Bobby Jindal, but I must say I feel a lot better about voting for John McCain in the coming election. Seeing the hysterical response from the left - especially from the radical feminists, the self-appointed "representatives" of women everywhere - has me in stitches. It illustrates the hypocritical double-standard the left applies to women based entirely on ideology. It also shows just how misogynistic the radical feminist movement really is, as their vitriolic denouncements of Sarah Palin as a "step backwards" for the cause of women everywhere is based entirely on the fact that Palin, unlike the Gloria Steinems of the world, has actually chosen to embrace her femininity and those aspects of humanity - such as being a proud wife and mother - that are unique to womanhood (and which the radical feminists have chosen to abandon in a pathetic attempt to emphasize their equality with men. If only they realized that equality and sameness are two distinctly separate things...).

What most strikes me about this article is that author Jeffrey Bell goes right to the root of the agenda of the political left. Unlike other pundits, who prefer to deal with the War on Terror, the economy, and immigration at the expense of the more important (but infinitely more contentious) issues of morality that are at the core of social conservatism, Bell tackles the problem head-on and correctly identifies the need to reject the morality of Christendom as the core of the liberalism that arose out of the French Revolution in the 1790s and which is wholly obsessed with creating a completely secular morality over which they can exercise full control and of which they can serve as sole arbiters. Please, please read the article. Bell hits the mark like few other political columnists have in recent memory.


The Speaker's Unusual Description of Catholic Dogma - Paul Weyrich has long been one of my favorite political writers; and thanks to this treasure nugget of an article, Thaddeus McCotter has just become one of my favorite Congressmen.

Nancy Pelosi looks like a deer in the headlights anytime she ventures outside the comfort zone of political obfuscation and tries her hand at theological obfuscation. We should have seen it as a sign of things to come when, upon taking over as House Minority Leader following the 2002 congressional mid-term elections, the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research, former priest wannabe had the gall to state: "I'm a liberal Democrat, but I'm a conservative Catholic." Naturally. I'm guessing in Madame Speaker's parallel universe, the Marquis de Sade had a healthy sexual ethic.

I congratulate her on one positive accomplishment, however: she has succeeded in stirring many usually lethargic U.S. Bishops to issue pastoral corrections against her ill-advised (and blatantly disingenuous) remarks. Perhaps this will force the USCCB to accept the fact that pro-abort Catholic politicians do not deserve our vote just because they happen to support minimum wage increases.


Read both articles, and enjoy. God bless!

In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Happy Birthday To My Mother And My Queen!

My comfort, my advocate, my sweet and beautiful Lady. May you ever be near me, enfolding me in your loving embrace and leading me, through your own Immaculate Heart, ever deeper into the Sacred Heart of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Happy Birthday!


Love always,
Your grateful child

Barack Obama In Berlin And Beyond: The Second Coming Of The Great Jelly Doughnut

In what was one of the more humorous political gaffes in American history, President John F. Kennedy traveled to Berlin in 1963 and, in a typically liberal attempt to express solidarity with a suffering people, proudly proclaimed: "Ich bin ein Berliner." This drew a great deal of laughter and applause from the crowd, which Kennedy may have been wondering about until he was informed afterward that the correct translation for "I am a citizen of Berlin" is "Ich bin Berliner." By adding the ein to his statement, Kennedy uttered a phrase that could mean either "I am one with the people of Berlin" or "I am a jelly doughnut." Either way, it was a poor attempt at populist rhetoric (as are most attempts at such rhetoric), and is a tactic that has become synonymous with modern-day leftist politics (though, in fairness, John Edwards is right in saying there are two Americas. Unfortunately, the America he lives in is not the one where people get $10-$15 haircuts, make public appearances without applying hours of make-up, and remain faithful to their spouses for life).

Enter Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama, who a few weeks ago made a tour of Europe where he was greeted with a hero's welcome at every stop. Of course, the people of Europe don't vote for President of the United States (thank God for that!) and Obama is not in fact President of the United States (though given the people he surrounds himself with, such presumptuous behavior should surprise no one). Like Kennedy before him, he attempted to show solidarity with the people of the world. Unfortunately, his display showed a definite lack of solidarity with the people of the United States of America.

Anyone who knows me knows that I enjoy engaging in deep theological and philosophical discussions. I do also enjoy lighthearted discussion, but I have little tolerance for people who present themselves as having all the answers yet refuse to share any of them. This tends to apply to most politicians, though people like Barack Obama tend to elevate the "intelligent fluff speech" to an art form.

It frustrates me to no end that we live in a day and age where people are so intellectually lazy that they demand all of life's difficult questions be answered in a convenient 10 second soundbyte. Like George Costanza, these intellectual sloths are drawn to toilet humor because they like things they don't have to think about too much. When discussing religion, they insist on using an arbitrary interpretation of select passages of the Holy Bible that is based on nothing more than personal experience and completely ignores the context in which the passages were written or the 2000 years of wisdom that have gone into interpreting such passages. When discussing politics, they prefer pre-selected Youtube questions to a classic Lincoln-Douglas debate, and obliging politicians have complied and in the process reduced political discourse to a pitiful pre-Kindergarten playground banter. And in their personal lives, they adopt a "live and let live" mentality devoid of personal accountability because they don't want to offend anyone and demand not to be offended themselves.

I apologize if this comes across as belittling or condescending to anyone; but in a day and age where people speculate about the vast potential of the parts of the human brain we are unable to use, is it too much to ask that we first concern ourselves with mastering the use of those parts of the brain we actually do understand?

One of the greatest weapons the devil has in his ongoing war against humanity is our own ignorance. He has worked overtime to ensure that we remain ignorant to his evil machinations, and we must grudgingly admit that he is very good at his job. Ignorance is the same weapon employed by the Saul Alinskys of the world, and continues to be employed by their disciples (including one Barack Hussein Obama).

We have brains, people. Let's use them. Unless, of course, we are content to let others believe that we think of ourselves as jelly doughnuts. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Satan: The Original "800 Pound Gorilla"

In one of the rare instances where Hollywood actually got it right, Roger "Verbal" Kint, played by Kevin Spacey in the movie The Usual Suspects, tells a police interrogator: "The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world that he didn't exist."

With that in mind, I went back and reread a 2000 interview that appeared in the Italian Catholic magazine 30 Days with Fr. Gabriele Amorth, who as an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome and author of two bestselling books on the subject, is probably the most famous real-life exorcist in the world today. The subject of the interview was the 2000 revision of the Ritual for Exorcists, a revision Fr. Amorth wastes no time in denouncing as counterproductive to the work of the exorcist. The interview is also of interest because it addresses the problems in the world and within the Church's hierarchy in failing to take seriously the spiritual threat the devil poses to our immortal souls. The link to the interview can be found here, and I strongly encourage you to read it. In the meantime, I wanted to post this excerpt from the interview, which I found of particular interest:

"30 Days: Is it down to the bishop to appoint exorcists?

Fr. Amorth: Yes. When a priest is appointed bishop, he is faced with an article in the Code of Canon Law which gives him absolute authority to appoint exorcists. The minimum one can ask of a bishop is that he has taken part in at least one exorcism, given that he has to make such an important decision. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case. But if a bishop finds himself before a serious request for an exorcism - that is to say one that has not been made by someone deranged - and he does nothing, he commits a mortal sin. And he is then responsible for the terrible sufferings endured by this person. Sufferings which sometimes last for years or even an entire lifetime, and which he could have prevented.

30 Days: Do you mean to say that the majority of the bishops in the Catholic Church are in a state of mortal sin?

Fr. Amorth: When I was a child, my old parish priest taught me that there are eight sacraments: the eighth is ignorance. And the eighth saves more than all the others together. To commit a mortal sin, there must exist grave matter, but also full awareness and deliberate consent. To fail to give one's aid is, for bishops, a grave matter. But these bishops are ignorant: there is therefore no deliberate consent and full awareness.

30 Days: But if one does not believe in the existence of Satan, does one's faith remain intact, is it still the Catholic faith?

Fr. Amorth: No. I will tell you a story. When I met Don Pellegrino Ernetti for the first time, a celebrated exorcist who had practiced in Venice for forty years, I said to him, "If I could speak to the Pope, I would tell him that I meet too many bishops who do not believe in the devil." The following afternoon, Father Ernetti came back to see me to tell me that that same morning he had been received by John Paul II. "Holiness," he had said to him, "there is an exorcist here in Rome, Father Amorth who, if he met you, would tell you that he knows too many bishops who do not believe in the devil." The Pope answered him briefly: "He who does not believe in the devil does not believe in the Gospel." That is the reply which was given to him and which I repeat.

30 Days: Explain to me if you would: does this mean that there are many bishops and priests who are no longer Catholic?

Fr. Amorth: Let us say that they do not believe in a Gospel truth. Therefore, I would possibly accuse them of propagating a heresy. But let us understand: someone is only formally heretical if he is accused of committing an error and he persists in it. But because of the situation in the Church today, no one would ever accuse a bishop of not believing in the devil or in demonic possession and of not appointing exorcists because he has no belief in these things. I could mention a great number of bishops and cardinals who, as soon as they had been appointed to a diocese, withdrew from all exorcists the faculty of exercising their powers. Or of bishops who openly maintain: "For myself, I do not believe in these things. They are beliefs of the past." Why is this? Because unfortunately there has been an extremely pernicious influence exerted by certain biblical experts, and I could mention the names of some very well-known people. We who every day come into close contact with the world beyond, we know that this influence has had a hand in many of the liturgical reforms."


To wit: no one this side of Heaven is fully safe from the wickedness and snares of the devil. This is especially true in an age when those entrusted with the task of protecting us from such wickedness and snares become hopelessly entangled themselves.

Please read the full interview and post your comments. I am very interested to hear your take on this. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

Random Musings On The Assumption Of Our Blessed Mother

Today is the Feast of the Assumption. On November 1, 1950 His Holiness Pope Pius XII proclaimed as dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed, body and soul, directly into Heaven at the conclusion of her time here on earth.

Whether or not the Blessed Mother experienced an earthly death prior to her Assumption remains open to debate, as the proclamation made no attempt to address the issue. I myself have not really taken a stance on the matter, preferring instead to think about what those final moments must have been like.

While contemplating the sufferings of the Blessed Mother during the events of the Passion, I often rely on the visual and mental imagery supplied by two primary sources: Maya Morgenstern's heart-wrenching performance as the Blessed Mother in Mel Gibson's powerful film The Passion of the Christ and the book that served as the film's chief inspiration, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. These two works paint a very vivid picture of the anguish Mary felt in seeing her beloved Son take upon Himself all the sufferings of the world. But what one most comes to understand in both the movie and the book is the incredible love that the Blessed Mother has for her Son, a love surpassed only by that of the Father and the Holy Spirit and unmatched by any other creature. It is a love so intense, a union of two hearts so intertwined, that the Blessed Virgin's sufferings parallel those of her Son even when they are not physically near each other. We think back to the sorrow she felt when she lost Him at the age of twelve, the grief that struck her as she searched for Him, and the obvious relief (tempered with the maternal instinct to scold her child for worrying her so) when she found Him in the Temple. The intense pain of being separated from her 12 year old Son for three days foreshadows the infinitely more painful three day separation from her 33 year old Son. This pain of separation from the beloved Son, in fact, is a recurring theme in Mary's life; and it mirrors the pain that we feel at being separated from God here on earth. Paradoxically, this sense of separation becomes more pronounced the closer we grow to the heart of God. A trademark of all Saints - indeed, a trademark of all those who live a life of heroic virtue - is a growing alienation from the world and a growing desire to be with God in Heaven. How much more intense, then, must this feeling have been for the one who among all creatures was closest to the heart of God, the one who lived a life of such heroic virtue as to be surpassed only by that of the Word Incarnate Himself?

We hear often of the pain Mary felt when she searched for her Son in Jerusalem, the joy when she found Him in the Temple, the sorrow that defies all understanding during the events of the Passion, and the equally indescribable joy that must have come over her when He rose again. But how often do we hear of yet a third instance when Mary must have felt the pain of separation from her Son, the pain she must have felt after His Ascension into Heaven? Certainly, she must have felt great joy for her Son when He returned to His rightful place at His Father's side; but this joy had to have been tempered by the realization that she would live the rest of her earthly life separated from Him once again.

We know little of the life she led after His Ascension, other than the bits and pieces that have been handed down to us. Most sources seem to agree that she remained in Jerusalem for a time after the Ascension, though at some point in her life she ended up in Ephesus (present-day Turkey), where tradition holds that she spent her final years on earth. She was no doubt a beloved mother figure to all those who knew her Son to be the Son of God, just as she would become a beloved mother figure to all the faithful in the ages to come. We know she lived a life free from sin, and no doubt was, after her Son, the greatest model of human holiness to those who knew and loved her, just as she has been to all the faithful who have known and loved her throughout the ages. Even so, it would be impossible for the rest of mankind, who suffer the effects of the Fall, to grasp how hard it must have been for her to live from day to day, obediently following the will of God and living her earthly life, all the while fervently desiring with a desire no other creature could ever possess to be reunited with her Son in Heaven.

If Mary died an earthly death, there were no doubt those who gathered around her bed to mourn the passing of one they loved so dearly. If she simply looked heavenward and stretched her arms out towards the angels who were to carry her to her beloved and to the queenly accolades that awaited her - with few if any witnesses to mark her passing from this life - there were no doubt those who still grieved at her removal from their midst. Still, those who knew her best - especially St. John the Apostle, who was there when her Immaculate Heart was pierced, and who may even have been holding her in his arms and consoling her at the exact moment of that piercing - must have been overjoyed at the thought that her greatest desire was even then being fulfilled.

What must it have been like for the Blessed Mother - she who had known the joy of finding her Son in the Temple, and had known the joy of His Resurrection? In those last moments before she was taken from this world, what wonderful sense of anticipation must she have felt, what tears of joy must she have shed, knowing that she would presently be reunited with the One whom she loved most - this time forever? What ecstasy must have gripped her tender and loving heart - a heart once broken by the many evils unleashed upon her Son - at the thought of seeing that Son in all of His divine splendor? Whatever the circumstances of her departure from this world, there is no doubt in my mind that no one save Jesus Himself looked forward to the life that is to come more fervently than did our beloved Mother. Where we are moved to tears of sorrow for the sufferings visited upon her pure, innocent heart, let us be moved to tears of joy at the knowledge that her life had a happy earthly ending, and an infinitely happier heavenly beginning.

Happy Feast of the Assumption! God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

"Well, I'm Personally Opposed, But Unwilling To Impose," Said The Smiling Politician As He Handed The Scissors To The Doctor...

Have you ever noticed how every single politician who uses the "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose" argument as a cop out when confronted about their views on abortion just happens to have a 100% voting record in support of abortion according to NARAL and seems to have no problems with imposing support for abortion on unwilling taxpayers? Seems to me that anyone who is genuinely conflicted on abortion would just abstain from voting on the issue rather than consistently voting against their conscience. Then again, politics and common sense did go through a messy divorce well before my time.

Still, why is it that the "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose" argument gets used only when referring to abortion? Why is it alright to express this idea on abortion but not, say, on racism? I can only imagine how quickly the press would devour the politician who says, "I'm personally opposed to racism, but I don't see how I have the right to tell a restaurant owner that he can't hang a 'Whites Only' sign in the front window of his establishment." If such a politician were given a 100% rating for his voting record on race issues by the KKK (no offense meant to any elderly senators from West Virginia), I imagine he would be tarred and feathered and run out of Washington. Certainly, this politician's claims to be "personally opposed" to racism would be ridiculed, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would do their usual round of chasing down the nearest available TV camera and calling for this politician's resignation in righteously indignant tones.

And if a politician whose voting record consistently favored capital punishment were to say, "I'm personally opposed to capital punishment, but I don't see where I would get off telling a government how to punish its convicted felons," I seriously doubt anti-capital punishment activists would shrug their shoulders and say, "To each his own." Instead, they'd come out in full force and denounce the politician as a supporter of capital punishment who was trying to have it both ways.

Yet the politician who says, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't see what right I have to tell a woman what to do with her body" is not only not challenged by the media on such a stance, but is usually praised for having such strong "principles." Well, I'm used to the double standard the media employs concerning the issue of abortion (and in general concerning Christian moral teachings they happen to reject), but that doesn't make this any less cowardly or pathetic.

I have just one question for those who think they can pass themselves off as pro-life despite refusing to oppose the horror of abortion just because they claim to be "personally opposed": do you or do you not believe that it is a human being growing inside a pregnant woman's body? If the answer is yes, then no amount of "personal opposition" will change the fact that you are condoning the slaughter of innocents by others on a scale that King Herod could never have imagined. If the answer is no, however, then you do not believe that abortion is murder; and if this is the case, then what logical reason can there be for being "personally opposed"? No matter how you view it, the "personally opposed but unwilling to impose" argument is a dishonest and cowardly way of trying to avoid having to make one's true beliefs on the issue of abortion known.

I'd like to say that in this case actions speak louder than words; but given the proliferation of obnoxiously loud politicians infesting our nation's capital, I think it's better to say that actions speak more forcefully. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald

An Uplifting Story...As Promised

Some of you may or may not subscribe to Fr. Tom Euteneuer's weekly e-mail newsletter. As President of Human Life International, Fr. Euteneuer is a leading voice in the pro-life movement and a fervent supporter of Pope Paul VI's landmark encyclical, Humanae Vitae. In his latest newsletter, he shares a touching letter from a laicized priest who signed the infamous 1968 protest letter encouraging Catholics to defy the Church's stance on contraception as a matter of "conscience". The letter is reprinted in its entirety here:

"Dear Fr. Euteneuer,
I have signed and am returning the Pledge of Assent to Humanae vitae for the Laity. There is for me a special significance in signing this Pledge, and [it] will give me a peace of mind and heart that I have not experienced since 1968. In 1968 I was a young Franciscan priest studying in the Graduate School of Religious Education at Catholic University. I personally knew Fr. Charles Curran and Fr. Dan Maguire, and was a student of Fr. Robert Faricy, SJ. Since they, as well as many other professors and graduate students were signing the Protest Document, I went along and did so also.
In 1975 for personal reasons not related to any doubts or questions about the Faith, or the Church, or the Religious Life...I requested and obtained...a dispensation from Pope Paul VI returning me to the Lay State. Later, I was married in the Church and raised my two children in the Faith....I have had many conversations with my Pastor and with his assistant (who is my spiritual director) about my days as a Franciscan Priest, and have been active in many of our parish's lay apostolate and ministries.
But I have always regretted having signed the Protest Document against Pope Paul's teaching in 1968, and having learned a few years ago that Fr. Faricy had publicly repudiated signing the Protest, I had wished that I, too, could repudiate in some official way, having signed the Protest....And so your "Pledge" document offers me an opportunity to correct my mistake, and find healing - and telling you about all this helps me to feel that my repudiation of the Protest is now known and accepted in a kind of semi-official sort of way by an "authority" in the Church.
And thank you for reading this, thereby humoring an old man, who despite everything else, knows that he is a "priest forever, according to the Order of Melchizedek.'"

It serves as a reminder that we should never assume that our sinfulness is greater than God's mercy. God bless!

Phyllis Schlafly on the NEA

The NEA - or National Education Association, as it purports to be called - is the largest teachers' union (and largest "labor" union overall) in the United States. This union recently held its annual convention in Washington, DC; and famed ERA-killer Phyllis Schlafly highlights what the convention "accomplished" this year. Her article can be found here. A word to the squeamish: what this article reveals is highly, highly disturbing. If not for its name, one would never associate this group with education of any sort. That's no accident: the NEA is about as interested in teaching children how to become critical thinkers and well-adjusted, morally upright human beings as Jack the Ripper was in rehabilitating prostitutes.

That's three posts in a row highlighting what's horribly wrong with our society. I promise to include posts on more heart-lifting topics in the near future. I'm just taking as my cue the tagline of the old Reader's Digest feature That's Outrageous: "Spotlighting absurdities in our society is the first step towards removing them." It is also an important step in conquering evil. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald