Saturday, October 31, 2009

A Conservative UN?

October 29, 2009

Conservatives Propose UN Reform
By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At a United Nations (UN) press conference Wednesday a group of conservative policy experts put forth an agenda for UN reform including alternatives to major UN programs on social issues and methods for making the UN more accountable to member states. The event featured authors of the new book ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives, published by the Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation.

Ambassador John Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the UN and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, praised the book's “data-driven, empirical approach, which proposes specific changes and alternatives.” Bolton highlighted the resistance to reforming the UN system from bureaucrats and member states alike. Bolton said his idea of the most practical path toward UN reform, would be a change in how the organization is funded, proposing voluntary funding instead of reliance on assessments. He said this would make the UN more responsive and accountable.

Ambassador Berenado Vunibobo from Fiji commended the book for asking "timely" questions, particularly on the role of the UN in the debate on social issues. Ambassador Vunibobo stated, "fundamental values seem to be under attack" at the UN and that for "small countries who are still rooted in traditional values, the debate at the UN can be truly frightening." Vunibobo highlighted in particular the ease with which negotiated language contained in treaties is "reinterpreted by some UN bureaucrats to suit their own purposes."

Austin Ruse, President of C-FAM, the event’s sponsor and publisher of the Friday Fax, opened the press conference, which was held at the UN Correspondent’s Association (UNCA), by calling the UN "broken," and pointed to the disconnect between the UN bureaucracy and member states in the UN's decision making bodies.

Brett Schaefer, of the Heritage Foundation and the book’s editor explained that the purpose of the book was not only to point out the UN's problems or take a "condemnatory" view of the UN, but to take the opportunity to investigate where the UN is meeting its goals and where it is not. Schaefer called on the international community to undertake reform to help the UN "live up to its expectations."

Dr. Susan Yoshihara, vice president for research at C-FAM and a contributor to the book, gave concrete examples of a "stratagem" whereby bureaucrats use innocuous procedural mechanisms to promote radical interpretations of human rights treaties. Yoshihara warned that this coupled with a "rights-based approach" to humanitarian action was undermining the credibility of premier UN agencies like the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Among her recommendations for reform, Yoshihara called on states to limit the role of special interests by holding treaty monitoring bodies more accountable and focusing on bilateral rather than expert-driven, top-down approaches to humanitarian aid.

Dr. Edward Fuelner, President of the Heritage Foundation, said that "whether one supports or opposes the activities of the UN, critical analysis on what could be done better for the people of the world always needs to be examined."

Wow the UN doin their jobs?

Nations Rap UN "Gender-as-Social-Construct" Rapporteur
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A host of nations lined up this week to criticize a special report on "gender-based human rights abuses in counterterrorism measures" for pushing a notion of gender as a fluid social construct and advancing a United Nations (UN) "gay rights" document known as the Yogyakarta Principles rather than focusing on the assigned task of examining the abuse of women caught up in the global "war on terror."

Dubbed an "interactive discussion" with UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, criticism from the Organization of Islamic Countries and the African Group, delivered by Malaysia and Tanzania, respectively, rapped Scheinin for exceeding his mandate in violation of the Human Rights Council's Code of Conduct. According to the African Group, Scheinin misused his position to advance the controversial Yogyakarta Principles, a statement purporting to "reflect the existing state of human rights law" concerning "sexual orientation and gender identity." Scheinin was one of about thirty self-selected "experts" who crafted the Yogyakarta Principles in 2007.

In response, Scheinin defended his use of the Yogyakarta Principles as "fully legitimate," calling it a "soft law" document that "enriches" ones understanding of binding human rights norms. One delegate, in remarks to the Friday Fax, discounted the "soft law" claim, pointing out that there is no international consensus on sexual orientation as a non-discrimination category and no binding legal obligation.

A statement by the Caribbean nation of Saint Lucia took Scheinin to task for departing from the agreed-upon definition of gender in the Beijing Platform for Action and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both of which affirm the traditional understanding of the term. The United States (US) delegation, signaling continuity with Bush Administration policy, also supported the Beijing usage, while adding that the US was interested in the effect counterterrorism efforts had on the "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community." The Rome Statute defines gender as "the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society," and the Beijing document affirms the "ordinary, generally accepted usage" of the term.

The Holy See restated that "gender is grounded in biological sexual identity, male or female," and rejected "the notion that sexual identity can be adopted indefinitely." India, which seldom speaks on such divisive social issues, faulted the Special Rapporteur for redefining "gender perspective," and for taking the committee into an "academic" debate removed from his mandate.

Scheinin had his defenders as well, particularly among European nations and certain Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Chile. Norway expressed "full support" for the report and welcomed Scheinin's elastic gender construct. Switzerland scolded those nations who attacked the special rapporteur because they did not agree with his submission, adding that they must comply with any subsequent resolutions based on his report.

Preserve Freedom

Support Fox News - Sign our petition

Thank you for signing our petition. It is unconscionable that the Administration is trying to silence the citizenry and we appreciate you speaking out against it.

Please encourage your friends and family to visit this link and to sign the petition as well:

I wonder if President Zero ever read this quote from his Hero?

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initive and
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and
should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Friday, October 30, 2009

Has Anyone Noticed?

In the weekly bulletin at Our Lady of Lourdes, it seems that we have gone from a required expenses of $17,000.00, down to $16,000.00. Every expense in the diocese has gone up, and the amount has drop one thousand dollars? Thats a great trick, maybe someone should tell Barack Zero Obama how to do that. Could it be that because of the parishioners that have been driven away from OLLMP parish, who were regular large contributors, are no longer there? Is this why the notice had been sent out for people to contact former parishioners to return? Why would they? What has changed?
Nothing has, so why return? The claim that there is more parking spots available now
shows an increase of parishioners? Quite the opposite is true! Has the crucifix been returned to the altar for mass? Has the confessions for the school children for first Friday been reinstated? Has the late Saturday day night confessions been returned? Why hasn't Our Lady of Fatima statue been return to the vacant place to the left of the Altar, when a statue of Our blessed Mother graceS the side of the altar in ST Thomas?
It is as if the parishioners were punished, for what? For reverence to our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ? Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, that we receive each and every time we receive the host? For being traditional Catholics, who love expressing our Love and Reverence for our Lord. What prompted this onslaught upon the parish?
Was it the exposure of Mathew Blockley, that so enraged Msgr and the Bishop, that they came down upon the parish with spiked shoes, and tried to trash our catholic ways? I have ponderd over and over, and tried to reason why would a loving parish be treated with such contempt. There is no rhyme nor reason for what had transpired.
Upon re-reading the accounts, even at this late date I have no clear explanation.
Every attempt had been made to meet with the Bishop, the Vicar, the Pastor, in every way, telephone,mail,email, even to hand the Pastor a letter, and when questioned about it, was advised that the letter had been handed over to his lawyer.
Almost all of the parishioners, were ready to welcome the new pastor with open arms,but when the madness proceeded, and Mathew Blockley , like a mad dog, started snarling at everyone, answering with "my decisions are final", did the parishioners retract, and withdraw their co-operation. Bishop Murphy's committee chose to ignore the 450 parishioners requests, and had made their minds up before hand, or the Bishop had decided what course of action he was taking, and chose to ignore us.
I have been asked many, many times, to forget about Mathew Blockley, and yet it was he that opened the flood-gate. It was he that put the spotlight on himself, and Msgr, with the LIES that were given to the parishioners, and yet Bishop Murphy published his COLUMNIOUS letter, indicating that those that investigated, and reported the truth were the liars. To have a priest without faculties perform marriages,hear confessions, baptize children, for eight or more years, without contacting his Bishop, IS WRONG, AND AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH.
Alas poor parish of Our Lady of Lourdes, is left without anyone driving the bus,and yet is asking the parishioners to seek out riders, to enter the bus without a driver.
Posted by itzik janowitz at 5:43 PM
Older Post Home

If you allow the same Democrats to stay in office, your tea parties will have been in vain!

I'll Pass on 'Opting Out'
by Ann Coulter

The Democrats' all-new "opt out" idea for health care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health care system.

Democrats tell us they've been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the "opt out" provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can't figure out what's going on.

The most important fact about the "opt out" scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can't "opt out" of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they're paying for.

It's like a movie theater offering a "money back guarantee" and then explaining, you don't get your money back, but you don't have to stay and watch the movie if you don't like it. That's not what most people are thinking when they hear the words "opt out." The term more likely to come to mind is "scam."

While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to "opt out," other liberals are being cockily honest about the "opt out" scheme.

On The Huffington Post, the first sentence of the article on the opt-out plan is: "The public option lives."

Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, "Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere."

But the only reason government health insurance will be more "affordable" than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That's something that can't be opted out of under the "opt out" plan.

Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets.

So, naturally, liberals aren't sure. In Democratic circles, the jury's still out on free market economics. It's not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they'd like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health care system on a European socialist model.

Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals' own obtuse reporting.

In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors' appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper's entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd.

As the Times reported: "In some dermatologists' offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees."

As the kids say: Duh.

This is the problem with all third-party payor systems -- which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care.

Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.

In 1960, 50 percent of all health care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government's share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance.

The reason you can't buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance -- or a million other products and services available on the free market -- is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn't bid for employees with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package.

Although employees were paying for their own health insurance in lower wages and salaries, their health insurance premiums never passed through their bank accounts, so it seemed like employer-provided health insurance was free.

Employers were writing off their employee insurance plans as a business expense, but when the IRS caught on to what employers were doing, they tried to tax employer-provided health insurance as wages. But, by then, workers liked their "free" health insurance, voters rebelled, and the IRS backed down.

So now, employer-provided health insurance is subsidized not only by the employees themselves through lower wages and salaries, but also by all taxpayers who have to make up the difference for this massive tax deduction.

How many people are stuck in jobs they hate and aren't good at, rather than going out and doing something useful, because they need the health insurance from their employers? I'm not just talking about MSNBC anchors -- I mean throughout the entire economy.

Almost everything wrong with our health care system comes from government interference with the free market. If the health care system is broken, then fix it. Don't try to invent a new one premised on all the bad ideas that are causing problems in the first place.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Are you a Conservative?

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Iota Unum by Romano Amerio available from Angelus Press

I read a great piece by Romano Amerio, his book
entitled IOTA UNUM. In it he pinpoints why the Catholic church is imploding, and falling apart from the inside out, just as our Country is falling apart from the inside out. Both crisis, are
as Philosopher of Lugano defined, as the most serious the church has ever experienced. The attack essentially perpetrated by men who belong to ther church's hierarchy, comes from within and not without.
Amerio's declaration quoted in "Iota Unum", in his speech to the Lombard College in Rome on December 7, 1968, Paul VI said,"The church is in a disturbed period of self criticism, or what would better be called self-demolition. "It is as if the Church were attacking herself".
His in depth analysis of Modernistic appeal, and movement by many Pastors toward a quasi-protestant Catholic church, is fueling the flames of destruction. Destruction of the consistancy of doctrine, leads not to freedom, but a destruction of the Catholic Souls, as self interpretation of the Bible, without explanations does. The insidious
laxing of the reverence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord in the Host, has opened the door to Satan, to tickle the human mind with his temptations.
When will the Church be resplendent once again in all her strength and purity? We do not know. But we do know the nature of the seduction that can be placed in the American category of secondary Christianity, that is to say, the idea that Christian faith derived its legitimacy from its ability to produce culture, and progress on the civil and purely human level:
......."the Church is setting aside its specifically supernatural nature, and blending its mission with the task of advancing civilization, fitting itself in as a help towards a more and just and brotherly world. The aim is to create a civitas hominica without denying a higher civitas daminica, but the links between the two are deliberately loosened with the aim of establishing a purely humanitarian world order."

Yours in Jesus,

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Regarding Homosexuality

1) HOMOSEXUALITY: The Church can never change its position on the immorality of homosexual behavior and therefore will never apologize. Homosexual behavior is a moral issue, and the Church is infallible when it speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and morals.

2) Homosexuality has been condemned in the Scripture, by constant tradition and by the Church hierarchy and constitutes the regular teaching of the Church’s Magisterium:

A) Scripture: Scripture condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms several places. Those who attack the Church’s position on this matter are taking issue with Scripture itself.

Romans 1:24-27: “That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” Here, homosexuality is listed along with many other behaviors always accepted as sins (thievery, adultery, etc.); if the Church is “wrong” on homosexuality, is it also wrong on these sins? Note that it says homosexuals will not “inherit the kingdom of God”, meaning homosexual behavior is mortally sinful.

Jude 1:7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

B) Tradition: Homosexual behavior has constantly been condemned by the Fathers and the Saints; there does not exist a single saint, doctor or father of the Church who condones it. A few examples:

St. Cyprian of Carthage: “Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them" (Letter 1:9 [AD 253]).

Eusebius of Caesarea: "[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, God adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

St. John Chrysostom: Here one of the most eminent of the Greek doctors explains that even if homosexuality is accepted in society, it is still a grave sin, something pertinent today: “And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment" (Homilies on Romans, 4 [AD 391])

St. Augustine: “"T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]). Notice that Augustine says homosexual acts are to be detested “everywhere and always,” indicating that he understood the Scriptural prohibitions to be universal and not just bound to one culture or time.

C. Magisterium: The Church’s Magisterium has spoken out on this very clearly as well, following in the footsteps of Scripture and Tradition.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexual acts: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (CCC 2357). Since Pope John Paul II said the Catechism was the “sure norm for teaching the faith” we must regard this as the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and give it our full assent (Apostolic Letter LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE, 1997)

The Magisterium has also condemned homosexual acts in the 1979 document Persona Humana put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In section VIII homosexuality is treated and merits being cited in full, which can be taken as the modern stance of the Church on homosexuality:

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of (Persona Humana 8).

D) Conclusion: It is evident that the Church’s condemnation of homosexual activities is not a modern position but something the Church has always taught and believed in every capacity. Therefore, it is part of her depoit of faith and by that fact irreformable and unchangeable. This means (a) that this position will never be changed (b) the Church will never apologize for it and (c) those Catholics who deny the Church’s teaching on this matter endanger their souls by adopting heresy. To say that the Church should change or is wrong is to deny the unchanging nature of the Church’s moral teachings. As Persona Humana says, “In moral matters man cannot make value judgments according to his personal whim” (Persona Humana 3

Sound familiar?

On the Church and the World...
"It is public knowledge that some ecclesiastics today seem to want to create a new Church. By doing so they betray Christ, for they change spiritual aims—the salvation of souls, one by one—into temporal aims. If they do not resist this temptation, they will leave their sacred ministry unfulfilled, lose the confidence and respect of the people, and create havoc in the Church. Moreover, by interfering intolerably with the political freedom of Christians and other men, they will sow confusion in civil society and make themselves dangerous. Holy orders is the sacrament of supernatural service of one’s brothers in the faith; some seem to be trying to turn it into the earthly instrument of a new despotism" (Christ is Passing By, no. 79)

St. Jose-Maria Escriva

Save the unborn from the UN

October 27, 2009

Dear Friend of the Unborn Child,

As I write this the UN Petition for the Unborn Child is up over 572,000 names with 87,000 new names in the last three weeks!

We intend to raise one million signatures by December 1 and present them to the UN a few days after that.

As you know the UN is the font of a great deal of anti-life propaganda. UN agencies and UN-related groups are at the forefront of making abortion a universally recognized human right. That’s right, UN radicals want to make killing babies in the womb a human right. Can there be anything more wrong, more evil that that?

The UN pro-life movement has banded together to fight this movement. UN pro-lifers are at the forefront of fighting this hideous movement of killing babies. The UN pro-life movement is outspent ten million to one and out-manned one thousand to one.

We need your help right now.

We have launched a petition in defense of the unborn child and the family. The petition is based on the very good language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes the “right to life.”

This petition will be presented to the UN in December at which time we want to present one million names. We are more than half way there but we need a huge effort on your part to get us all the way there.

Would you please forward this note to all of your friends and family, to everyone in your address book?

Ask everyone to go HERE, click on your language (the petition has been translated into 18 languages!), sign the petition and send this note to all of THEIR friends!

We can make a huge splash at UN headquarters in December and let them know that the world is really pro-life, that the world really supports the unborn child, and believes that abortion is a great moral evil, the great moral evil of our time.

So, if you have not signed the petition, go HERE and sign it. And then send this note to everyone you know. 

If you have already signed it, forward this note to all of your friends and family.

One million names can make a difference in our UN fight for the unborn child and the family.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
Petition Organizer

© Copyright 2009 Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 495, New York, NY 10017

Good News

Key post: US archbishop will help shape the world's episcopate
By John Thavis

VATICAN CITY (CNS)-- Pope Benedict XVI's naming of U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke to the Congregation for Bishops was a small but significant appointment that could have an impact on the wider church for many years to come.

The congregation's members generally meet every two weeks to review candidates for vacant dioceses and make their recommendations to the pope -- recommendations that carry a lot of weight. Precisely for that reason, the Congregation for Bishops is known as one of the most important Roman Curia agencies.

Membership on the congregation is a five-year appointment, which could be renewed until a prelate's 80th birthday. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Archbishop Burke, 61, will be helping to shape the episcopate, not only in the United States but also around the world.

Formerly the archbishop of St. Louis, Archbishop Burke was named in 2008 as head of the Vatican's highest tribunal, known as the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature. At the time, pundits wondered whether the appointment would in effect sideline someone who had been one of the most outspoken U.S. bishops on moral and political issues.

Archbishop Burke has been anything but silent, however. Since his Vatican appointment, he has insisted that holy Communion be refused to Catholic politicians who actively support legal abortion, said the Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" and said nothing could justify casting a ballot for a candidate who supports "anti-life" and "anti-family" legislation.

In mid-October, he celebrated a pontifical high Mass in St. Peter's Basilica using the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite -- the first time that has happened in almost 40 years.

Archbishop Burke, who is expected to be named a cardinal in coming months, will join about 30 other cardinal and bishop members of the Congregation for Bishops. Although the congregation's work is strictly confidential, sources explained in detail what the archbishop will be doing in his new role.

Unlike several other Roman Curia agencies, which may draw their full membership together only once a year, the Congregation for Bishops meets regularly every two weeks. The meetings last all morning, and typically bishops' appointments for four dioceses are reviewed at each session.

Even before the meeting, congregation members are sent abundant documentation on the candidates for each diocese, and they are expected to be familiar with the material. This is information collected by the apostolic nuncio in the country where the diocese is located; a large part of the packet is comprised of the written evaluations requested of some 30 to 40 people who know the candidate.

More importantly, members know they are dealing with decisions that will affect the future of the church and the salvation of souls.

posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

Friday, October 23, 2009

Very interesting

Nixon and Obama -- Soul Brothers?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Four decades ago, Lamar Alexander worked in Richard Nixon's White House. Sen. Alexander today says Barack Obama's White House reminds him of that place, that time, that mindset and those people.

Intending no disrespect to my old colleague, these days are not at all like those days, and this president and White House are nothing like the White House in which this writer worked from Inauguration Day 1969 to August 1974, when Marine One lifted off the lawn.

Richard Nixon had been elected in the most turbulent year since the Civil War.

Between New Hampshire and November, there was the Tet Offensive, LBJ's announcement he would not run again, the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, race riots in 100 cities and Washington, D.C., the takeover of Columbia University by radicals, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, a Democratic convention in Chicago marked by rancor inside the hall and police-radical confrontations outside, and a campaign in which Hubert Humphrey was shouted down at rallies until he agreed to a bombing halt in Vietnam.

No, these times are not those times.

Nixon took the oath as a minority president, 43 percent, in a hostile city, with both houses of Congress against him and a national press corps that had loathed him since he exposed the establishment golden boy Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, 20 years before.

Obama took the oath with close to a filibuster-proof Senate, a near 80-seat majority in the House, the media at his feet, not his throat, and a city in adulation that had voted 93 to 7 for Barack Hussein Obama.

Not even JFK entered office with more goodwill.

While Obama inherited an economic situation far worse than did Nixon, Nixon inherited a war far more divisive and bloody than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with 535,000 troops in Vietnam or on the way, and 200 soldiers coming home every week in caskets and body bags.

By October 1969, Nixon had ordered 100,000 troops home from Vietnam, proposed a Family Assistance Plan, enunciated a new Nixon Doctrine, welcomed the Apollo 11 astronauts home from the moon and become the first President to visit a communist country, Romania.

Obama has held a beer summit and won a Nobel Peace Prize.

In both October and November of 1969, 500,000 demonstrators marched on Washington to -- in the words of David Broder -- "break Richard Nixon" as they had broken Lyndon Johnson.

Wrote Broder, "The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

"Instead of making pronouncements about not being the first U.S. president to lose a war," admonished Time, "Nixon would perform a better service by preparing the country for the trauma of distasteful reversal" -- i.e, a U.S. defeat.

Nixon answered the demonstrators and their media auxiliaries with a Nov. 3. speech calling on "the Great Silent Majority" to stand with him and against those out to destroy his policy and presidency.

When the three networks -- primary sources of news for two-thirds of the nation then -- trashed his speech, Nixon authorized a counterattack by Vice President Agnew, which caused an avalanche of telegrams to pour into ABC, CBS and NBC denouncing them, in solidarity with the administration.

By December, it was not Nixon who was broken. Antiwar activists never mustered those numbers again, and the media had been exposed as out of touch with Middle America.

That month, Nixon rose to near 70 percent approval, and Agnew was the third most admired man in America, after Nixon and Billy Graham.

Nixon and Agnew had not wanted the fight, they had not started the fight, but they had not backed down -- and they had won the fight.

What were they supposed to do, Lamar? And when has Obama encountered anything like that?

Lamar left the White House in mid-1970 and decries Agnew's depiction of Albert Gore Sr., of his home state of Tennessee, as "the Southern regional chairman of the Eastern Liberal Establishment."

But was that not true? Gore was defeated in 1970 because he had lost touch with Tennessee. And Lamar's friend Bill Brook won.

They may have called us all paranoid, but as Henry Kissinger once mordantly observed, "Sometimes, even paranoids have real enemies."

As for an "enemies list," the only mistake was writing it down.

Does Lamar not think Nixon had enemies out to destroy him?

Does he not believe there was rejoicing in Washington when Nixon fell, or smug satisfaction when Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were lost -- on the faces of those who persuaded themselves that America could not succeed in Vietnam because they had failed?

No one denies Nixon made mistakes. Even he conceded, "I gave them a sword, and they ran it through me."

But those enemies were not a figment of his or our imagination. The Nixon-haters were real, and they were legion.

In 1969-1970, Nixon had a choice: capitulate or fight.

Compared with what he went through, Obama had a cakewalk.

Another choice to Destroy America

October 22, 2009 WHY DOES OBAMA LIKE KEVIN JENNINGS? Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the selection of Kevin Jennings as Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools: On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama’s Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher. What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of ACT UP, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O’Connor were posted. Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of ACT UP. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,” currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of “dialogue.” The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard—that’s old hat—the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling—he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters. Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Those that can't go to the Latin Mass, Enjoy!

verbal enunciation's (great)
I found this explanation and verbal pronounciation to be excellent. Enjoy

Saint Margaret Parish

Understanding the Mass in its Ancient Usage

Learning a unique language of prayer

with the text & downloads

To Listen to the Mass and Read it and follow it Click on this address:

Click on the speaker and follow the Mass in Latin
Used with permission and with much gratitude to Mr. Kieron Wood Esq.

Could this really happen in America?

Found this on U-Tube, if true, we are finished as a sovereign Government and Country. Check it out"

This could be the end of Democracy in our country,
and the beginning of subservience. Without any action needed or taken by our Congress, if Obama signs this, WE ARE FINISHED AS AMERICA. Bull? Check it out!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
CCHD huge donor to Acorn!
Catholic Campaign for Human Development

One thing that has always amazed me most about Leftist Catholics is their shamelessness. Be it Mahoney in California, Weakland in Milwaukee, Marini in Rome, McBrien at Notre Dame, or just your average collarless/golf shirt cleric or habitless/pant suit nun who heads up your diocesan Catholic Campaign for Human Development office, they all unfailingly defend the defenseless while at the same time cast aspersions against actual faithful Catholics who speak up against their malfeasance, or in the case of CCHD, the malfeasance of their beloved ideological organization. And some of them, such as Weakland, Mahoney, and the CCHD, are so shameless that even in the face of great scandal they remain obstinate and self righteous towards justifiably angry Catholics.

We all know that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in the last ten years has been involved with very suspect, if not downright anti-Catholic, organizations such as ACORN. The CCHD gave no less than 7.5 million dollars to ACORN alone. And recently, as reported by California Catholic Daily, ACORN is not the only anti-Catholic organization the CCHD does business with. See link to full story here:

But to the point, the reason I began this post was to share a couple emails that were sent to my inbox. The first email I received was from the Diocese of Raleigh CCHD office and I post it in full so you can see the general attitude of our local CCHD office. I have redacted the authors name, but the full text of the email is as follows:

Dear Respect Life Leaders of the Diocese,
I am sorry to see that an article about ACORN and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is being circulated in the diocese. This kind of rhetoric only continues to be divisive among people. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has no links to ACORN. The US Catholic Bishops have dealt with this. Regardless of what people think about ACORN, CCHD is not funding the organization. CCHD continues to monitor every grant. The Church’s CCHD campaign is directed at the poor and vulnerable in our country just as Bishop Burbidge named in his homily. Sadly, as with some organizations, ACORN fell astray in areas. It seems at times there are some people who seem to know more than the US Catholic Bishops and continue to look at life with constant negative attitudes. Our Bishop and all the Bishops continue to ask parishioners to support the Catholic Campaign for Human Development each November through a collection. This money is used by the Bishops to work to eradicate poverty in this country. Our collection is November 15. It is one of 10 official collections in the diocese. Some people continue to use the ACORN argument in their opposition to CCHD. This is sad because so much good is being accomplished in our diocese and all dioceses across the country through CCHD funds. An example of one o f these grants is a funding of the St. Ann Parish Neighborhood Youth Center in Fayetteville working with low-income young people, another is a project in Raleigh working with the homeless and so on. This October 29 Bishop Burbidge will distribute CCHD checks to 10 local organizations. You are welcome to come to the dinner and hear about the good these groups are doing in the diocese. The dinner is open to all at 6:30 pm at St. Michael’s Parish Center, Cary. Just RSVP to me. If you have read the article my question is who is Bellarmine Veritatis Ministry? Are they a voice of the US Catholic Bishops?Our Respect Life and CCHD information comes to me from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican and I send it on to you. Let us pray for each other that we are, indeed, instruments of the Lord.

Now I read the above email and immediately wanted to simultaneously throw up and scream at my computer screen. But then another email popped up in my inbox and what a delight it was to read. Again, I have redacted this lovely persons name so as to respect their privacy. The excellent response to the Raleigh CCHD was as follows:

You are incorrect, the CCHD has funded ACORN in the past, the act of funding ties CCHD to this organization. The CCHD has also funded organizations that promote, abortion, same sex marriage and contraception. This is not an effort to be divisive, it is a question of accountability. When people donate money to a Catholic organizations they have an expectation that the Bishops will be good stewards of their money. They have not been good stewards. There is no question that some of the initiatives funded by the CCHD have done good and helped the poor and yes, XXXXX we all want to do that. There has been a loss of trust in the CCHD because ,in it's effort to push a social justice agenda,they have chosen to overlook or not thoroughly investigate organizations that they have funded with our money. XXXXX, take a step back and I will quote your own word, "this money is used by the Bishops to work to eradicate poverty in this country." Jesus, told us we will always have the poor, our job is not to eradicate poverty in this country, ours is to pick up the cross daily and work to comfort and aid the poor through acts of corporal and spiritual works of mercy.I do believe, in an effort to" eradicate " poverty and social injustice ,CCHD has compromised it's own mission. Our work will never end, it is a cross that must be picked up daily. I see many Catholic organizations losing sight of that goal and with that, making compromises that are in direct conflict to the moral and doctrinal teaching of the Church. I appreciate all of your hard work and I know most people involved in the CCHD are motivated by a true love for the poor and want to help. There is something fundamentally wrong with the CCHD right now. We as Catholics must look at this organization carefully and we must ask questions and expect clear and objective answers. When we fund CCHD we are funding the organizations they fund. To have an open discussion of the facts about organizations that the CCHD has funded now or in the past, is not an act of divisiveness, it is an act of responsible, prudential forethought.
My post is long enough so I will just stop here. I think the above two emails speak for themselves. Words of warning, the CCHD is still a sick organization and every Catholic should think twice about supporting this organization. And the CCHD person in the first email above is incorrect in stating that CCHD defunded ACORN three years ago. In 2007 alone, CCHD funded ACORN in excess of 1 million dollars and the funding continued into 2008 and the presidential election cycle. The CCHD very well may have assisted in electing Barack Obama president, the most anti-Catholic president in American history.

posted by Confiteor

Monday, October 12, 2009

Fatima Warnings, THE Apostasy of the Church

Father's Letter of September 2009,
re: “Why Priests Need Our Help”
J.M.J. Father Nicholas Gruner

“That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell. … The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls.”

... Sister Lucy of Fatima

Incredible as it may seem, there are priests who know little of the greatest miracle to occur since the Resurrection: the Miracle of the Sun. No Divine message since Our Lord walked the Earth has been given such a seal of authenticity.

Over 70,000 people saw “the sun dance” on October 13, 1917. This was the miracle Our Lady had promised the Fatima seers. This was God’s stamp of approval upon the Message the children had received.

Yet, few priests learn anything about Fatima during their years of seminary training. What is worse, some are told that Fatima is unimportant; others are told it is irrelevant or a thing of the past.

We cannot allow this to continue. Souls are at stake. The future of humanity is in the balance.

Priests and laity must work together to bring the Message of Fatima to light in this ever darkening world.
Our Lady asked the children for penance; for sacrifices so that sinners might be converted. How often do we hear priests preach about the importance of penance and sacrifice? How often do we hear them even mention sin? Or even the existence of hell?

Priests and the laity have been under assault by a world media that sees man as little more than an animal to be manipulated into the most shameless and degrading sins.

And the world, under satan’s instigation, has succeeded in leading souls, like a herd of cattle, to spiritual death because there are too few holy priests who know the way to fight against this demonic perversion.

(TAKE NOTICE OF WHAT IS WARNED. Father Robert Mason preaches correctly, and Modernistic Priest avoid speaking about the following:)

How many priests even mention sin? Sin, if it is mentioned at all from the pulpit these days, has to do with “sins” that are politically incorrect.

For example, we hear about sins against the environment. But do we ever hear about real sins, like sins against purity? Our Lady of Fatima said, “More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”

(And yet some high profile Priests teach " if it is done with love it is NO SIN!)

Are we ever urged by our priests to make sacrifices so that souls might turn to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and regain their lost purity?

Our Lady also asked for the First Saturday devotions: that we confess our sins, receive Communion, pray five decades of the Rosary and keep Our Lady company for 15 minutes while meditating on the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary, doing all these things with the intention of making reparation to Her Immaculate Heart.

Simple requests. Who ever hears or heeds them these days?

(At Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,our First Friday confessions in the School have been removed. Why? Was it inconvenient? Did it take up too much time? Isn't our Catholic school interested in the souls of their children? Father Mason always heard these confessions and he is probably still available to this day. Is APOSTASY setting into our school also?


Friday, October 9, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize? For What?

I have noted that President Zero Obama, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Award. FOR DOING NOTHING,
Truely a form of the Anti-Christ who must have hypnotic powers, to dull the minds of the intelligensia, which proves that because they have much education, they sadly lack the common sense of normal people.
I must thank President Zero Obama, for being able to revive the Conservative movement in the the united states, and for Awakening the spirit of the Moral Majority in America. This may be seen starting this year, in the elections. The American people can take just so much, and when they push back, WATCH OUT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, you are going to be swept out, along with all of the DIRT.
Remember those in Congress, were the do nothings in office during the last 4 years of President Bush, and had the lowest approval rating of any other congress, and lower than President Bush. I believe that Nancy Pewlousy had held something over Bush's head, as a stark change came over him, after their meeting.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Yeh sure!

Many people read magazines and newspapers and listen to morning or evening news programs on television. These publications and news programs point to things like the melting of glaciers to prove global warming is real. The melting of glaciers is not new. It began over 250 years ago when the Earth began to warm from a deep freeze know as “The Little Ice Age.” During that time the Earth’s temperature bottomed out in the 1600s. Since then, the Earth has been warming.

What about the polar bears? I speak in many schools to young students about weather and climate. When I ask for all of those who believe the polar bears are drowning to raise their hand they all go up. This is unfortunate because the truth is far different. The 1960s population estimation of polar bears was 5,000. Today that number is 25,000. That does not sound like a creature going extinct. There are predictions about what will happen to polar bears but the reality is that they are thriving.

Rising sea level is one of the biggest threats from human-made global warming. Business man and carbon entrepreneur Al Gore predicts sea level will rise 20 feet by 2100. In reality sea level has been rising ever since the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago. It is now rising about eight inches per century and there has been no acceleration of that rise. The reason there has been no acceleration of sea level rise is because the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic are not melting. We have only been able to measure the amount of ice at the top and bottom of the world for 30 years. Polar orbiting satellites were launched in 1979 to take pictures of the ice. Arctic ice is highly variable and in 2007, it hit a low volume. The ice has been increasing for the last 2 years and is 17 percent above what is was in 2007. The amount of ice in the Arctic and in Greenland is largely regulated by the 60-year water temperature cycle of the North Atlantic Ocean. The water was warming in the 1980s up until about 2005. The Atlantic is now beginning to show a cooling trend. There is more ice in Antarctica now than there was 30 years ago. Fifty years ago the average annual temperature at the South Pole was 49 degrees below zero. Today, the average annual temperature at the South Pole is 49 degrees below zero. All of the highest world record temperatures by continent were set before 1943 except for Antarctica where it reached 59 degrees on January 5, 1974.

So where does this leave us? When humans burn fossil fuels they create a small amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the air. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising for at least 150 years, yet there is no relationship in the long-term temperature record. The Earth’s temperature rose from about 1908 to 1943. Carbon dioxide levels were rising as well. Then from 1944 to 1977, the Earth’s temperature fell. Carbon dioxide levels continued to rise during this time. From 1978 to 1998 the temperature rose again while carbon dioxide levels continued to increase. Since that time, the temperature has not increased, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise. How can this be? According to global warming theory if the amount of carbon dioxide increases, so must the average global temperature.

The reason is because the theory is wrong. Studies of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that the temperature of the Earth rises first then carbon dioxide levels rise. The increase in carbon dioxide levels in the air is the result of warmer temperature, not the cause of it. The ice core record proves this. Al Gore had it backwards. This is not surprising since he is not a scientist. He is an activist business man selling a product.

As global temperature continues to fall over the next decade the world will wake up. This will eventually have deep and profound effects on energy markets. Hydrocarbon-based products will become more valuable. The value of alternative energy sources like wind, solar and bio fuels will collapse. In step with that collapse will be the demise of carbon credits originating from cap and trade policies. Just when this will happen depends of the severity of the next several winters. The depth of the cold of the coming winters will change the social and political climate in ways that only nature can orchestrate.

Art Horn is a meteorologist with 25 years of television experience with NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS. His company, The "Art" of Weather, presents programs about weather and climate to adults and students. He lives in Connecticut.

The pendulum is swinging back again!

St. Mary's Chapel, Boston College: Aspirations for Both Forms
by Shawn Tribe

From a reader:

Mass in the Extraordinary Form was offered for (what we believe is) the first time in a great number of years (possibly since the reform) in St. Mary's chapel at Boston College on the Feast of St. Michael. Fr. Augustin Anda of the Boston Archdiocese was the celebrant. Men from Boston College's adoration group, the St. Thomas More Society, served at the altar. The "Schola Amicorum," which also sings at other local Boston EF Masses, provided chant. Roughly 25-30 people, a majority of them students, prayed at the Mass.
The NLM is told that this group of students has aspirations to have monthly Mass offered in the usus antiquior, as well a monthly Mass in the modern Roman liturgy which employs Latin and ad orientem.

As always, it is encouraging to see these matters approached from the lens of both forms of the Roman liturgy.The Saint Thomas More Society IS the Catholic presence at BC. Their numbers have grown from a mere handful in 2002 to over 60 active members today. In the past two years alone, 5 men have entered the seminary from this group. This development is a great blessing for the Society and for Boston College, lit candles on the gradine or not.
Joshua Phelps

Finally some backbone

Where Liberalism is going:
New research by The Cardinal Newman Society has uncovered evidence that the student health insurance plan provided by Boston College, a Jesuit institution of Catholic higher education, includes coverage for “family planning” services such as birth control pills.

“Now that it has been uncovered that Boston College is providing unethical coverage to students, college officials should take immediate action to provide students with insurance options that conform to Catholic teachings,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society.“BC needs to send a strong message, especially after students voted in a referendum last year to petition the college to make contraceptives available on campus.”

Contraception and birth control services are explicitly covered under the student health plan, Blue Care Elect Preferred (PPO), which is an optional plan for students provided by Boston College. Although elective abortion is not explicitly stated in the policy, Koster Insurance Agency, Inc., Boston College’s insurance agent, could not rule out the possibility that abortions are covered by the policy, according to an article in the Boston College Observer.

The revelations at Boston College stand in stark contrast to the situation at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, which is engaged in religious liberty battle with the U.S. Equal Opportunities Commission because the college refuses to cover contraception in its faculty health care plan.


Written By: CNSweb
Date Posted: 10/7/2009

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Religion vs Peoples bodily desires!

On the webist, they have an article that the young people of the catholic faith in the Czech republic where our Pope Benedic XVI had just visited, were bemoaning that he is being too restrictive of his berating the act of Homosexuality. I guess I had to speak out with my take on that, you can go to that website and see what their reporting was, here is the response I posted:

Since when does the religion have to pander to the wills of those that are supposedly following that religion? The Pope is 100% correct in this idea, that homosexuality, and lesbianism, are aberrations of Gods intent of Sex. Had Moses pandered to the Jews, finding them sacrificing to the Golden Calf, with the 10 commandments in his hands,then the whole Jewish people would have probably been destroyed, by God turning his back on them. Those that engage in the unnatural appeal of sex with the same gender, have brought down judgement on themselves, and are looking to have more and more people accept them, not caring what the consequences for those that follow them are.
Not being satisfied that the Aides infection was contained amonst themselves, they spread the disease by having sex with heterosexual
partners, just to have the disease spread to them, and whatever heterosexuals they have sex with. Then say, "See, it is not just us that have it". That was the roll that the ACLU took when the prisons noted the disease, and wanted to quarantine those that had the disease, the ACLU fought that idea, liberalism at its best. That is what the Modernists want for the Catholic faith Then let them join themselves to the Protestant faith, the Catholic faith is the faith that was handed down by Jesus through Peter, and those doctrines should not be changed, no matter what the world is about.
The world eventually will destroy itself, and not by destroying the forests, but by giving them the liberties their bodies yearn for.
In over 2000 years, mankind has not learned one single thing, and keep following the mistakes of the past. A look at proverbs will depict the nature of man, then, and now. We had been warned of the deeds of the flesh, immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, drunkeness, are just as prevalent today as they were over 2000 years ago. That is what the people are yearning for, and for the Pope to give in to them, will not lead to salvation, but destruction, and not just of the body, but of the imortal soul.
JMHO, Itzik