Monday, April 27, 2009

As spineless Iowan men allow gay marriage, two bold women speak out!

Men need to get a grip – and a spine. As ridiculous corn-loving farm boys in Iowa stand by and let the homosexual community trample on matrimony, two women are speaking out on issues that are just as big: abortion and Obama at Notre Dame. For those men out there too scared to do what’s right, it’s time to listen in and join the fight.

It’s time to be men.

According to the Associated Press, “Harvard University law professor Mary Ann Glendon says in a letter to the school president that giving Obama an honorary degree violates the U.S. bishops' 2004 statement that Catholic institutions shouldn't honor people whose actions conflict with the church's moral principles.” Because of this, she has rejected Notre Dame’s highest honor, the Laetare Medal!

Hats off to Mary Ann Glendon!

In case you didn’t know, she was the ambassador to the Vatican during President Bush’s last year in office. As of late, her position is becoming harder and harder to fill as the Vatican won’t accept an ambassador who is pro-abortion. It seems Obama can’t find any pro-lifers to fill the vacancy. But that shouldn’t surprise us as he couldn’t seem to find anyone who paid their taxes either, much less find anyone who supported human rights to send to the Vatican.

In other news, Kathy Ireland, a former super model, joins ranks with Ms. California in opposing moral evils that are becoming more and more accepted by society. In Ireland’s case, the issue is abortion. I’d sum up her words, but I think they speak for themselves:

“My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science… What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there."

“I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby.”

“Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time. I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue."

Hats off to Kathy Ireland!

For too long we’ve let the media and the Far Left control the conversation on the most important issues of our day. Enough is enough. We can’t allow ourselves to be bullied but rather we should take the fight head on! We must vocally support those who speak out against the hideous evils undermining the fabric of our great nation. What’s more, we need to learn the truths and ask the Holy Spirit to help us boldly proclaim them!

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Why Socialism is Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholic

There are a great many people who like what Obama is doing to our economy but hesitate to call it what it is: socialism. But what is the philosophy that guides socialism which becomes so opposed to our faith? Well, belive it or not, there is a philosophy that guides everything and everyone. How we view the world will greatly affect how we live in the world and what kind of government and economy will shape the world.

Christians believe that the world was created by God and that, through sin, we have damaged our relationship with God. We also believe that by the power of Christ's victory over sin, death, and the devil, we may be restored to life in Him. Catholics get a little more techinical by explaining that (though I'm sure some Protestants can agree) those redeemed in Christ still suffer from something called "concupiscence" - which is the tendancy to sin. So although we may have come to Christ and be empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are like ex-addicts still drawn to the "beauty" of sin (whether it's sins of the flesh, the world, or the devil).

Furthermore, Catholics understand that we are not perfect but nevertheless strive to truly become saints. In other words, one day we shall find ourselves in a state where we will sin no more. The process of purification from sin and the tendancy to sin goes on right now, but we also believe it could happen after death in the process (not place) of Purgatory.

C.S. Lewis wrote of Purgatory: "Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'"

Catholics also tend to emphasize the fact that God likes to designate his authority to as many others as he can. I should think that Purgatory will be a wonderful time (if "time" can be used) of reflection and guidance into sanctity by the great saints and angels. We all know God is so powerful he could make everything he wants to happen happen all at once! But he sends Gabriel ahead of him to announce Good News; he calls the great patriarchs and prophets to do wonders; he called twelve young men to topple the Roman Empire - and he allows you and me to pray for each other and help each other in this life and in the next!

But what does all this have to do with socialism?

Socialism is fundamentally opposed to Christianity in general and Catholcism in particular because it opposes everything I have said above. Perhaps the most damning aspect of socialism is the fact that it takes away the concept of giving people the power to act according to the their nature and freedom as the children of God. Not only does socialism set itself up as GOD, but its image of God is an image of dominance and control. Socialism is the God that controls all aspects of how people will live their lives, enslaving them to what the government wills - thus it's really the Devil.

But there's more "Devil" in this to be found. The philosophy guiding socialism, I believe, is quite hellish. Why's that? Well I don't think any honest, hard-working American really wants a socialist State. Unfortunately, the socialism entering America is a result of social movements dating back to the 60s. People began to demand more rights - which in itself is very good (epecially the Civil Rights movement). For many, however, This demand for "rights" began to become a demand for license, irresponsibility, immorality, and selfishness. In other words, the "freedoms" of the individual led people into pure self-interest and selfishness.

And what were the results? The new "me, me, me" philosophy of the 60s and 70s led to a tremendous decline of church attendance, a massive increase in violence, teen pregnancy, and poverty as a result of lust. Americans were told to hate their country, hate their parents, and hate anyone else with authority. More importantly, the anti-church philosophy guiding the times helped keep churches from operating, much less helping the poor, teaching children, and running hosptitals.

So what happens when people won't help others as they should and don't go to church to worship the God who will bring them to living upright lives? The government steps in; steps in happily, mind you. It first attacks the economy because it isn't "fair" enough by enslaving the economy to foriegn powers, then it attacks morality by enslaving individuals to their passions (because slavery to sin is somehow what "freedom" is all about). In the end, it can only lead to a nation's self-destruction and to individuals in hell. That last part is the scary part. Where will our children and our children's children live for eternity? Where will all the Tommy's and Tiffany's, David's and Danielle's go when their lives on Earth conclude? If socialism is bad, hell will assurdly be much, much worse.

Is that the kind of change we can believe in?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Are Advanced Interrogation Techniques Effective?

Well, thanks to Islam it seems these techniques are very effective. In the article below (from Newsmax.com) Marc Thiessen, a member of the Bush Administration, is quoted regarding Obama's decision to release top secret CIA files.

In a nutshell, the files reveal one of our key strategies in the War on Terror (thus making us less safe) while blacking out the evidence for how effective the strategy was. For example, the techniques helped prevent a major terrorist attack in LA - but that fact was blacked out in the files released. Read on for more!


Bush Aide: CIA Interrogations Worked

President Barack Obama’s claim that the techniques used by the CIA to question terrorist suspects did not produce valuable information is “patently false,” according to an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Marc A. Thiessen, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution who served as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, asserts that the “proof” is in the previously classified memos Obama recently made public — even though significant portions are “redacted,” or blacked out.

The memos detail the use of waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning that Attorney General Eric Holder has denounced as torture — as well as sleep deprivation, isolation and physical violence.

Obama said the techniques “did not make us safer.”

But a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo states that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qaida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’”

In one instance, interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed “with enhanced techniques” led to the discovery of his plot to crash a hijacked airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building on the West Coast.

Interrogation of al-Qaida logistics chief Abu Zubaydah with those techniques produced information about the terrorist organization’s key operatives and its operations in Iraq, a memo discloses.

Thiessen, who served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, writes: “All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out.

“The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.”

The reason, according to Thiessen: “If the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.”

The memos also note that Muslims are “permitted by Allah” to provide information when interrogated if they feel they have reached the limit of their ability to withstand questioning.

According to the memos, waterboarding was used on Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times, and on Abu Zubaydah 83 times.

“The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely,” Thiessen observes. “This is the secret to the program’s success. And the Obama administration’s decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security.”

Thiessen adds that Obama’s decision to release the previously classified documents is ‘one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war.”

Monday, April 20, 2009

According to the President, Being Pro-Life Might Make You a Terrorist!

Unfortunately the current administration is defining anyone who believes unborn children are human beings as a potential domestic terrorist threat. Of course, this only advanced the nation's new policy of letting terrorists go while attacking honest hard-working Americans at home. It gives new meaning to Obama's mantra: Soft on terrorists, tough on babies [especially those who love babies].

What follows below is an article from the Christian Post on Obama's attack on pro-lifers and the defense of such a horrid policy by his DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano.


Napolitano Defends Pro-Life Inclusion in ‘Extremist’ Report

The head of the Department of Homeland Security on Sunday defended the inclusion of pro-life supporters in the agency’s report that identifies possible terrorist threats, saying there have been extremist groups within the abortion debate that “have committed violent acts.”

DHS secretary Janet Napolitano made the comments in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing – considered the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States prior to 9/11.

The show’s host, John King, questioned Napolitano on a line in the report that suggests the threat of extremism could come from “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

He asked her whether the DHS had active investigations on “anti-abortion groups” concerning the matter. Napolitano declined to comment on ongoing work of the agency but pointed out the “history” of violent acts by such groups. The DHS head said that although “people have different points of view about abortion” and that the DHS supports free speech rights, there are those within the abortion debate that justify the agency’s concern.

“On the other hand, at the very edge of the [abortion] debate, at the very edge are the extremist groups that have committed violent crimes,” said Napolitano. “They’ve committed bombings and the like.” “And that is where you cross from constitutionally protected free speech, freedom of assembly, all the rights we cherish, into homeland security and law enforcement. When is that right not being exercised, it’s being abused,” she added.

Controversy erupted this past week over the DHS report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment,” after it was leaked to the media. Critics have accused the report for targeting those who have ideologies or political views that run counter to that of the Obama administration. The report identifies rightwing extremists as those who oppose lax immigration, restrictions on firearms, and same-sex marriage. It also says that extremist groups could target disgruntled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as potential recruits.

On Sunday, Napolitano refused to list examples of rightwing extremist groups, saying the groups were “far too numerous to mention.” But she commented that a number of groups “want to do what happened in Oklahoma City. That is, commit violent acts within the homeland.” Over the past week, many conservatives have lashed out at the report for lumping pro-lifers with rightwing extremists.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice called the pro-life reference an “outrageous characterization.” “This characterization is not only offensive to millions of Americans who hold constitutionally-protected views opposing abortion – but also raises serious concerns about the political agenda of an agency with a mandate to protect America,” he stated last week.

Thomas More Law Center, a Christian-based law firm, is suing Napolitano over the report on behalf of Michael Savage, a nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host; Gregg Cunningham, president of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform; and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The lawsuit claims that Napolitano’s Department has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.

“This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution.” Christian Coalition of America, meanwhile, has urged supporters to contact Napolitano to demand an apology.

“Veterans and pro-lifers should not be targeted as terrorist threats by the Obama administration,” the group’s president, Roberta Combs, stated in an e-mail sent Friday. “This partisanship must stop.” Napolitano apologized to veterans last week, telling Fox News that the report was meant as “an assessment, not an accusation.” She also said if there was one part she could rewrite it would be the footnote defining rightwing extremist groups.

Many war veterans organizations, including the commander of the 3 million-member American Legion, had blasted the report for citing the Oklahoma City bombing by military veteran Timothy McVeigh as one instance of a veteran becoming a domestic terrorist. Among those flustered over the report were members of the House Committee on Homeland Security who have requested Napolitano to meet with them this week and brief them on the report.

Contraceptive's Connection to Promiscuity, Abortion, Adultery, Divorce, and Homosexuality

Marriages today are in bad shape. What was once supposed to reflect the unending heavenly relationship between Jesus and the Church (Ephesians 5:32) now reflects the short hellish failed-relationship between two people whose children are so often caught in between.

If you were to examine a typical American person, you would discover the following pattern: this typical American lost his or her virginity in high school or most certainly in college. After having two or three sexual partners, he or she finds out after college that dates are harder to find. Finally, after finding someone and having regular sex once more, the two decide to move in with each other. After harassment from friends and realizing that they probably won’t find anyone better (or don’t feel like looking around again) the two decide to settle for each other and get married. This is what one moral theologian calls “sliding into marriage” as opposed to a courtship that leads to marriage. After some time the couple has children - some of which, if not all, were conceived “by accident” when their contraceptives failed. Afterwards the parents decide to get sterilized and one of them eventually commits adultery (often times with someone at work). The marriage then ends in divorce.

The above example sadly happens all the time. But what causes it?

A Stanford economics professor and demographer named Robert Michaels noticed that between 1960 and 1975, the divorce rate doubled. His studies showed that such a radical increase in divorce in such a short amount of time was due largely to the explosion of contraceptives during the same fifteen year period. Looking at the Catholics in America, in 1960 only 34% of Catholics were using contraceptives but by 1975 nearly 80% of Catholics were using contraceptives! But how is this connected to divorce? Michaels noticed that promiscuous sexual practices before marriage led to adultery in marriage and then divorce – but the increase in sexual promiscuity was caused by the “safety” of contraceptives. Just look at pregnancies outside of marriage: in 1960, 6% of US children were born out of wedlock; today 32% are born out of wedlock! That’s nearly six times what it was fifty years ago!

Perhaps some would argue that having babies outside of marriage is perfectly legitimate. Well, check out the statistics on poverty in relation to this matter. A child who lives with parents that have only been married once (to each other) is more than five times less likely to live in poverty than a child living with a single-mother. As a matter of fact, 68% of children living with a single unmarried parent live in poverty while around 40% of children living with a separated parent or unmarried parents cohabitating live in poverty! In other words, the best bet for raising children in a stable home is to bring that child into the world through a loving, lasting marriage. The problem is that only 28% of our children will experience this.

But let me restate the logic one more time: the explosion of contraceptives in the 1960s led to Americans acting in sexually promiscuous ways. This sexual promiscuity has led people into marriage unprepared for the commitment (and led a great many to adultery) and then eventually divorce.

But contraceptives have now also become the basis for our country’s toleration of abortion. In the case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Supreme Court said that: “In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraceptives. For two decades of economic and social development’s people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that defined their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Thus abortion is defined as backup contraception.

The statistics show this as well. 81% of abortions in American are procured by women who are unmarried, divorced, separated, or widowed. The other 19% come largely from married women who have committed adultery, are getting in vitro fertilization (where several babies are made and all but one aborted), or are aborting children that have some sickness. What I’m saying here is that 81% of the women getting abortions are women that shouldn’t be engaging in acts that lead to having babies to begin with! But being that “abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraceptives” as the Supreme Court says, we must practice lust and not self-control. Contraceptives, however, sponsor the lust that drives babies to the abortionists.

Perhaps the most commonly used contraceptive today is the chemical contraceptive in patch or pill form. Many people are not aware of this, but the chemical contraceptive can do great damage to a woman’s body. The four most common complaints include: depression, irritability, weight gain, and reduced sex drive. Often times women taking the pill or patch are forced to take an anti-depressant that only helps kill a woman’s sex drive – thus the pill/patch with the anti-depressant makes a woman “free” to have sex but kills her sex drive and makes her feel like junk in the process!

But there’s more. Other side effects of the pill/patch include liver tumors, strokes, migraines, high blood pressure, and ovarian cysts and over 21 other potentially deadly side effects. When the chemical contraceptive was first tested, three women died! In a new patch released, seventeen women using it died of mysterious causes and lawsuits are on the way.

Dr. Janet Smith, a moral theologian, commented: “We live in a culture that is beginning to realize that it’s bad to put chemicals in the air and in the water supply and in the food, but we have women put it in their bodies day after day, month after month, year after year to stop something that is perfectly healthy.” This statement made me think of another oddity. The reproductive system is one of the body’s main systems – others, for example, being the circulatory system, skeletal system, and the endocrine system. No woman would ask her doctor to prevent one of these other systems from working but there is somehow nothing wrong with disabling her reproductive system! If anything, a doctor should only be able to use medicine in order to make the reproductive system work better, not worse! Contraception thus strikes me as anti-medicine!

There are, however, connections between contraceptives and the relationship between men and women (and men and men) that are played on a more instinctual level. Men and women are more attracted to each other when a woman is fertile (only a short period of the month) but the chemical contraceptive makes a woman infertile and this infertility can make men act bizarre. A Rutgers anthropologist professor named Lionel Tiger did a study on monkeys and contraceptives to see what relationship it could have to humans. He discovered that when the female monkeys mating with Austin, the dominant male of the group, were contracepting Austin began looking for new females! What’s more, when all the females began to use the contraceptive, the males began to act in “turbulent and confused” ways – they began to have sex with each other.

Another test was done by the professor in which successful “evolutionarily desirable” males and their failing “loser” counterpart males wore a t-shirt for a day. During that day the shirts soaked up pheromones released by the men. Afterwards the shirts were collected and contracepting and non-contracepting women were asked to judge which men were the best based off the smell of the shirt. Guess what? The contracepting women choose the losers! This partly because when a woman is pregnant her body is telling her to bond with the father of the child and not to look for other suitable men – but women using the chemical contraceptive have bodies that have been duped into thinking they are pregnant!

In the end, these tests thus seem to indicate a connection between the rise in homosexual behavior and event the rise in contracepting women wearing less and less in order to attract men who are “turbulent and confused” from the lack of fertile women in their presence. These men are more than likely to thus face addictions like masturbation and pornography (two addictions common with husbands whose wives use a chemical contraceptive).

I want to wrap this post up, but I don’t want the whole post to be simply about me being against something for, as a Catholic, I am very for that which is good and ordered to our relationship with God. Today the UN wants to spend $19 billion on contraceptives in third world countries. In India, however, for no cost 19,843 poverty-stricken, mostly illiterate Indian women had a pregnancy rate approaching zero because Mother Theresa’s nuns taught them Natural Family Planning – a program that is 100% natural, practically 100% effective, and absolutely free of charge. Think about the real medicine and health care that $19 billion could get the poor if we would just let people have non-contracepting natural marriages!

Natural Family Planning is not simply natural; it also sponsors the kind of communication between couples that marriage counselors dream of! When the couple is naturally drawn closer because of the woman’s fertility, the two have to sit down and discuss where their marriage is at and how having another child would affect them. In short, couples practicing Natural Family Planning have a seriously incredible relationship. Lastly, Natural Family Planning helps the couple in their relationship with God because they are conscious of the fact their union could bring about the creation of a new, immortal creature whose soul was created from nothing by God.

Of course, marriages are never an easy affair. But I would argue that couples that do not have sex before marriage, do not cohabitate with each other before marriage, and who do use Natural Family Planning during marriage will have a strong marriage that will last a lifetime. It will be the kind of marriage that can survive life’s many difficulties with the grace of God to see each challenge as a joy. As G.K. Chesterton wrote: “The fairy tales said that the prince and princess lived happily ever afterwards: and so they did. They lived happily, although it is very likely that from time to time they threw the furniture at each other. [True] marriages are happy marriages; but there is no such thing as a contented marriage. The whole pleasure of marriage is that it is a perpetual crisis.”

Scripture tells us that Jesus, “for the sake of the joy that lay before him endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2). Contraceptives try to take the cross out of marriage but it only leaves us in slavery to sin and in the tomb of death without hope of the resurrection and the joy that follows.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Wise Words of Archbishop Dolan

On Wednesday Archbishop Timothy Dolan became the Archbishop of New York. What follows below are some of his words he preached at his installation Mass that afternoon. What a man!


"This is the day the Lord has made! Let us rejoice and be glad! Alleluia! He has risen as He said, Alleluia! Alleluia! Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega. All time belongs to Him and all the ages, to Him be glory and power! Amen!"

You are all so very welcome here, in this "Cathedral of suitable magnificence," as Archbishop John Hughes, whose cross I wear today, termed it, that has been such a warm, embracing spiritual home for untold millions. Thank you, thank you all for so personally supporting me as I begin this apostolic ministry in the Archdiocese of New York… Maybe I should not be so flattered that so many are here, after all, everybody wants to "take sanctuary on
income tax day!"

My dear family, when I told [my] mom that Pope Benedict XVI had appointed me Archbishop of New York, I remarked, "Mom, whatever God gives me in life, His greatest gift to me is that I am Bob and Shirley Dolan's son." I mean that. And I'm so glad Mom is here this afternoon [she almost didn’t make it] because there's a sale on at Macy's!

But, I hope you understand, as grateful as I am to all of you, there is another claim on my gratitude that towers above all the rest. Above all, above all, I give praise to God, our Father, for raising His Son Jesus Christ from the dead! For Christ is risen! He is truly risen! Give thanks to the Lord for He is good! For His mercy endures for ever! For this is not all about Timothy Dolan, or all about cardinals and bishops, or about priests and sisters, or even about family and cherished friends.

Nope, this is all about two people: Him and her . . . this is all about Jesus and His Bride, the Church. For, as de Lubac asked, "What would I ever know of Him without her?"

The Resurrection, Easter, is the very foundation of our faith, our hope, our love. Everything in the Church commences when, like those two disciples on the road to Emmaus that first Easter, we recognize Jesus as risen from the dead. The Church herself begins. The Resurrection of Jesus is so central to our faith that we celebrate it every Sunday at Mass. On my first day as your archbishop I dream that we can reclaim Sunday as the Lord's Day, anchored in our faithfulness to Sunday Mass, our weekly family meal with the risen Jesus.

In thanking God for the Resurrection of Christ, we thank God for the Church. For as "Jesus is the human face of God," as Pope Benedict XVI often reminds us, the Church is the human face of Jesus. For us as Catholics, Christ and His Church are one. The triumph, the life, the light, the mercy, the raising up, the salvation which exploded Easter morning as Jesus rose from the dead continues in His Church, an extraordinary spiritual family that gathers men and women of every nation, race, language, and background into a breathing tapestry of faith. The power of the risen Christ shows itself -- Christ shows Himself! -- in the extraordinary community that is the Church.

God's love for us is so personal, so passionate, so intense that He gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. And when God the Father raised His Son from the dead, He put His divine seal of approval upon His work of art, the human project, on women and men made in His own image and likeness, washed clean by the blood of His Son on Good Friday, destined to spend eternity at His side, and assured us, "The evil, horror, lies, hate, suffering and death of last Friday will not prevail! Goodness, decency, truth, love, and life will have the last word."

That's the Easter message the Church is entrusted to live and to tell. For, believe it or not, the dying and rising of Jesus continues in His Church.

The risen Christ is alive here in the Church in and through her priests. My brother priests: you are the apple of my eye! You mean everything to me. Without you, I can do nothing. In you I still see St. Isaac Joques, Venerable Felix Varela, Issac Hecker, Fighting Father Duffy, Fulton J. Sheen, Richard John Neuhaus, Avery Dulles; in you I see men who continue the power of the resurrection at the altar, in the confessional, in the classroom, with the sick, searching, and the poor. I have long admired you from afar, but today for the first time I can say, "my brother priests" of the Archdiocese of New York-my admiration, deep appreciation, and unflagging love to you;

The awesome yet gentle might of the Christ's Resurrection continues… as His Church continues to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life. As the Servant of God Terrence Cardinal Cooke wrote, "Human life is no less sacred or worthy of respect because it is tiny, pre-born, poor, sick, fragile, or handicapped." Yes, the Church is a loving mother who has a zest for life and serves life everywhere, but she can become a protective "mamma bear" when the life of her innocent, helpless cubs is threatened. Everyone in this mega-community is a somebody with an extraordinary destiny. Everyone is a somebody in whom God has invested an infinite love. That is why the Church reaches out to the unborn, the suffering, the poor, our elders, the physically and emotionally challenged, those caught in the web of addictions.

The risen Jesus remains alive in this archdiocese as the Church partners with respected neighbors and friends of other Christian families, our Jewish older brothers and sisters in the faith, who today conclude Passover and have our best wishes, and with our Islamic and Eastern religious communities, as the Church relishes the unique ecumenical and inter-religious concord of this greater New York community; and as the archdiocese collaborates with our political, civic, cultural, and business leaders, so very welcome here today, in all noble prospects advancing human welfare and dignity. Seven-and-a-half years ago, on September 11, 2001, New Yorkers gave a lesson of extraordinarily generous courage to the world. Selfless police officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical personnel, saved lives, and many gave theirs. Their sacrifice was an ecumenical, interreligious civic testimony to the worth of every human person. You did us all proud, and now how proud I am now to partner with all of you in that same spirit…

And just what, I ask you, does the Church have to give? Does she have power and clout, property and prestige? Forget it! Those days are gone, if they ever did exist at all… The Church really has no treasure but her faith in the Lord, which is not bad at all, as we shrug and say with Peter and John in the Acts of the Apostles, "Silver and gold we have not, but, what we do have, we give: Jesus Christ!

Now, let me bring this home by suggesting that we all take a little stroll down...the road to Emmaus. See, I mentioned to you that the Church continues not just the rising but also the dying of Jesus Christ. We've just been through a litany of ways that the rising of Jesus radiates in the Church in this historic archdiocese. But we'd be naive if we overlooked the dying, wouldn't we? For indeed not only the Resurrection but the cross, the dying, of Christ goes on...

I say to you, my sister and brother disciples now on the road to Emmaus, let's not turn inward to ourselves, our worries, our burdens, our fears; but turn rather to Him, the way, the truth, and the life, the one who told us over and over, "Be not afraid!", who assured us that He "would be with us all days, even to the end of the world," and who promised us that "not even the gates of hell would prevail," the one who John Paul the Great called, "the answer to the question posed by every human life," and recognize Him again in His word, in the "breaking of the bread," in His Church. Let Him "turn us around" as He did those two disciples, turned them around because, simply put, they were going the wrong way, and sent them running back to Jerusalem, where Peter was, where the apostles were, where the Church was…

My new friends of this great archdiocese, would you join your new pastor on an "adventure in fidelity," as we turn the Staten Island Expressway, Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, Broadway, the FDR, the Major Deegan, and the New York State Thruway into the Road to Emmaus, as we witness a real "miracle on 34th street" and turn that into the road to Emmaus?

For, dare to believe, that from Staten Island to Sullivan County, from the Bowery, to the Bronx, to Newburgh, from White Plains to Poughkeepsie, He is walking right alongside us. "For why do we look for the living among the dead? He is risen as He said, alleluia, alleluia! Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His mercy endures forever."

Saturday, April 11, 2009

An Unlikely Alliance of Men and Elves.. Um, Iranians and Europeans

What follows is a hopeful, good versus evil account at the UN (Mount Doom) which took place recently. Covered by zenit.org, a Catholic online news agency, the story is told with a persective from, as you might have guessed, Tolkien's Middle Earth.

Read on to find out how the "Hobbit" countries rallied around the cries of the "Dwarf-state" Iran. An odd combination to be sure. Iran, of course, is led by a madman, but their people are still sane enough to know that abortion shares its destination (for those who procure them without due repentance) with its origin: hell. I will say that the hope this story brings is far greater than any hope our administration offers - because this hope is the real deal!


Hobbit Alliance Brings Triumph of Hope

It was an epic tale of triumph worthy of J.R.R. Tolkien. The events at the U.N. Population and Development Commission last week could have been taken straight out of his great trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."


Last week, representatives from 47 countries gathered in New York for the annual meeting of the commission on population and development of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. In view of a world population projected to hit 9 billion in 2050, the commission reviews and assesses the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development approved by the United Nations in 1994.

Behind the optimistic fa├žade of concern for the welfare of a burgeoning population, a darker, most sinister agenda loomed. A new language was insinuating itself amid the hopeful statements of the earlier U.N. documents.

The main agenda item was "sexual and reproductive health and rights" -- the terminology under which many NGOs and U.N. committees promote abortion -- and the codification of a language that would open the door to an array of demands by homosexual activists.

Like the one ring forged by Sauron in the depths of Mount Doom, this term revealed the master plan: "One Ring to rule them all" and to bring them into darkness. Changing the word 'ring' to 'agency,' the specter of the Dark Lord could be replaced by Planned Parenthood, one of the most active NGOs at the meeting.

A prescient few saw the impending menace. Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, noted that "one cannot help but get the impression that populations are seen as the hindrance to greater social and economic development." The prelate also warned that the commission "is giving priority to population control and getting the poor to accept these arrangements rather than primarily focusing upon its commitments to addressing education, basic health care, access to water, sanitation and employment."

But the armies of darkness were strong and seemed invincible. China, Great Britain, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Spain and Germany could be expected to promote this language. The United States, under a new administration in thrall to the culture of death, would use all of its might to advance the reign of Planned Parenthood. All seemed lost.

These international giants, the leaders in economy, development and technology, were certain that no obstacle remained to their plan. In the statement made by Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the executive director of the United Nations Population Fund, the plan was revealed. She invoked the world financial crisis, and the subsequent difficulty in sustaining programs to improve the health and education of the world's poor. “The financial crisis was threatening to wipe out this hard-won progress."

But her solution was to ensure that "greater attention is paid to population issues and more resources are devoted to women's empowerment and reproductive health, including maternal health care and family planning."

Translating this to the common tongue, her proposal is to teach women that childbearing is dangerous and oppressive; therefore abortion is healthy and liberating. Even the Evil Lord of Mordor never tried to pass off his agenda of death and enslavement of the human race as something "positive" and "empowering."

Obaid then reminded the commission that the Cairo conference had agreed that "every person has the right to sexual and reproductive health," and exhorted the commission "to keep the promise to ensure universal access to reproductive health by 2015."

The great nations nodded and applauded, much like the ring wraiths whose will had long been bound to that of their wicked overlord. The culture of life braced itself to take another loss among the many it had already suffered.

Then help came from an unexpected quarter. Iran took the floor and protested that the "right to sexual and reproductive health" could not be substituted with "sexual and reproductive health and rights."

The Iranian delegate pointed out that this phrase had never been included in any negotiated U.N. document before and urged the commission to revert to previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the original 1994 Program of Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion.

Immediately four Catholic countries -- Ireland, Peru, Chile and Poland -- picked up Iran's call to strike the wording. It was an unusual alliance, not unlike the dwarves and elves overcoming their differences to fight the common enemy.

Although the Christian community and Iran find themselves opposed on many issues, it was a heartening vision to see the diverse nations cooperating in defense of alliance and dialogue through the culture of life.

But as in Tolkien's great adventure of the fellowship of the nine, it was the smallest of all that saved the day. Like the four indomitable hobbits of Tolkien's epic, the Holy See (a tiny 104-acre state), Comoros (which I had to look up on Googlemaps -- it's in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar) Santa Lucia and Malta all joined the fellowship to break the stranglehold of the forces of evil.

These four hobbit-like states, whose collective national products probably don't equal the operating budget for Planned Parenthood, spoke loudly and convincingly. Malta decried the consistent attempts by the commission to expand "reproductive health" to include abortion.

The delegate from Santa Lucia saw to the heart of the proposed wording and stressed that her delegation understood that this provision did not threaten the right of health care providers to refuse to perform or be complicit in abortions as a matter of conscience.

As Galadrial said to the wavering Frodo, "even the smallest person can change the course of the future."

At the last moment at the close of the meeting, the ring of power was thrown back into the fires of Mount Doom from whence it came. "Sexual and reproductive health and rights" was struck from the text.

In these days of imminent conscience coercion, massive government funding of abortion and other gloomy signs on the horizon, this little fellowship at the United Nations demonstrated what Tolkien's characters whisper during the darkest hours and Pope Benedict XVI exclaims from nation to nation: "There is still hope."

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

America’s Gay Marriage Crisis and the Christian Faith

In less than a week, two additional states passed measures to give homosexuals the right to “marry” and be recognized by the State. On Friday, the Leftist Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Just today, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor’s veto against gay marriage – thus making the state the first state to go so far in the legislature.

The obvious conclusion that people of faith should reach is this: liberals are not to be trusted as leaders of our communities, states, and our country. Why? Because even someone like Barack Obama, who is against gay marriage, will do nothing to stop gay marriage. Unlike President Bush, who appointed Justices Roberts and Alito to combat abortion, the appointees of Obama will undoubtedly be pro-gay marriage. Of course Obama will publically decry their decision for good show, but he will have invariably helped to further the homosexual agenda.

This is exactly what happened in Iowa.

My question is: how can Christians really be backing these politicians and policies. Surely they must now begin to realize that a vote even for a “moderate” Democrat is a vote for a radical liberal-atheist agenda because these are the kinds of people they put on the courts. It does make me glad that the only five decent justices on the US Supreme Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) are all Catholic. I also find some hope in that my distant liberal family members in Iowa are almost guaranteed to be alienated by the onslaught of the immoral and intrinsically evil and disordered acts promoted by the liberals and thus vote for those who are opposed to the Left.

I do, however, have to take a look at the Christian behavior of the last forty years and ask how well we have done to model Christian sexual ethics. The country is nearly 90% Christian but how many of these have justified all sorts of immoral activity? How many Christians are addicted to pornography? How many Christians of the last forty years have loved their future spouses enough to wait for them and retain their purity for their wedding night?

This is by no means a call for judgment upon our Christian brothers and sisters but rather a call to love as God loves. We cannot expect others to live up to the Christian ideal if we do not make some attempt to do it ourselves. For how can we say that adultery is permissible – just as long as it is between two consenting heterosexuals? How can we condemn disordered homosexual lusts and orgies and then condone disordered heterosexual lusts and orgies?

I challenge Christians to reclaim the truth about their bodies and live it. Every action begins with a thought. If we really thought truly about ourselves, we must act on that truth. In the end, it won’t be a clever argument that wins the hearts of sinners, but rather it will be truth proclaimed in word and deed.

To win this war, we must be saints.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Men, Women, and Marriage

Great quote... It would by my Facebook status if it were only a sentence shorter.

"To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot. Every woman has to find out that her husband is a selfish beast, because every man is a selfish beast by the standard of a woman. But let her find out he is a beast while they are still both in the story of "Beauty and the Beast." Every man has to find out that his wife is a cross - that is to say, sensitive to the point of madness; for every woman is mad by the masculine standard. But let him find out that she is mad while her madness is more worth considering than anyone else's sanity." -G.K. Chesterton

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Is the Government Taking Our Banks?

What follows is an excellent article from Newsmax concerning the government takeover of U.S. banks. Sound far-fetched? Then why, when a bank wants to pay back monies borrowed from the government, won't the government allow it (and then threaten the bank when it insists)? It's because when the banks are holding public funds, the government can tell the bank what to do.

Is this the kind of change we can believe in? Read on:


The Obama administration is seeking to control the nation’s banks just as it has now near-total control over two of the Big Three auto companies, says Wall Street Journal columnist Stuart Varney. In a piece that appeared Saturday in the Journal, Varney noted how administration officials didn’t seem too happy that banks had return money to them from the TARP (Trouble Assets Relief Program.)

“So why no cheering as the cash comes back?” Varney wrote. “My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.”

By managing the banks, Varney reasons, one of the most liberal adminstrations in the nation’s history can ‘steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.” As long as banks keep public money, the Obama administration can direct their policies with an eye on the larger agenda. It’s also the reason that the Obama administration is moving toward having control over CEO salaries.

Varney recounts a story, reported on Fox News, of one unnamed bank that had accepted TARP funds under the Bush administration. The bank is now “begging” the Obama administration to take the money back because bank directors now feel they are safely recapitalized.

“But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent,” Varney reports. “The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.”

“After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this,” writes Varney, who is British. “I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.”

The Secular Socialist Ideal is Opposed to Christianity

We hear today at Palm Sunday Mass from a scriptural passage that is used to properly attack secular socialist ideals while defending the ideals of historical Christianity. The passage comes from the Gospel of Mark.

When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head. There were some who were indignant. "Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil? It could have been sold for more than three hundred days' wages and the money given to the poor." They were infuriated with her. Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me…”
Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went off to the chief priests to hand him over to them. (Mark 14:3-7, 10)

I think many of us overlook the fact that Judas’ indignation towards Christ and his tragic decision to hand Jesus over to his death came to fruition over how best to serve the poor. Today, the secular socialist ideology of robbing the rich to “serve” the poor is sadly seen as the ideal by which Christians vote. Judas, like the secular “progressives” of our day, was also a revolutionary who sought to overthrow those in power on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. However, both Judas and his contemporaries in the modern-day Far Left thought the best way to happiness was in power and control, and not self-sacrificial love and self-control.

Using Judas’ “power and control” method in today’s society, the secular socialist ideals only use the “power of the people” to take away any real control they have to love freely. What’s worse, they have no qualms about throwing out both self-control and self-sacrificial love. These things are too hard, after all. “How can we expect humans to act humanly?” they ask. “What we need to do is setup a God-like government and then defame and lie about anyone who disagrees with us.”

Indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love. A son who is passionately angry with his father has more of a relationship with his father than a son who is completely indifferent towards his father. Anger itself can be a first step towards reconciliation. Again, the problem with the secular socialist ideal is that it will make us completely indifferent towards our neighbors. According to this ideal, the next time we see a poor man we won’t say: “Hey, how can I help?” but rather say: “Why are you asking me for help? What you need is an Obama-bailout that will help you for a day or two.”

What we really need, however, is an aggressive expansion of faith-based efforts with real accountability on the local level. Aristotle, like Christ, advocated for a love/friend-based political system. The secular socialist ideal is always calling for social justice. Aristotle and Christ teach us that in a community of friendship, no justice and laws are necessary. When I’m with my friends (even friends who disagree with me on politics) we do not need laws to govern our behavior, nor do we need the government to tax us to death in order to support one another. We simply treat each other as friends.

Someone really important once said: “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” Not only does this mean giving of ourselves freely, it means reaching out, getting to know, and truly loving our neighbors who thus become our friends. The secular socialist ideal, however, seeks to make strangers out of our neighbors and “friends” out of those who will go on to kill our neighbors.

But maybe they think that our eventual deaths will come easier when those who should be our real friends are only strangers.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Liberals versus Unionists?

It's kind of funny when Far Left mouthpieces like the New York Times begin to reap what they sow.

Or do they?

According to other media outlets: "The New York Times Co has threatened to shut The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions..." What's so hilarious here is that for years the New York Times has been promoting unions again and again. What's perhaps most ironic is that, instead of giving the workers a "fair" wage, they plan simply to fire all of them and put them on the street. How liberal-sounding is that? Unfortunately, their Far Left agenda has left them to bite their own bullet. But now when it's time to walk the walk they appear to be crippled. Or maybe they're just hippocrits.

I think we all know which one it is.

But here's the deal: it often does come down to unionists needing to take a hit. But it's really not a hit. For example, GM unionists make between $30-$40 an hour to watch an automated machine build cars. That's why your new cars cost so much and why car companies need government help for years. The Left says: "I know the American people can't afford your crap, so we'll make them pay anyways by bailing you out!" The Right seems more resonable in saying: "Hey GM, pay your people a just wage but don't let them strangle you and the American people by demanding extremely high (and thus also unjust) wages."

As a Christian, I'd say asking for $40 dollars an hour is a sin against the fourth commandment: honor your father and mother. This commandment extends itself to matters of proper authority. Businesses, like parents, need to treat their employees properly - but employees, like children, need to be fair and honest with their employers. For years we've been told to rebel against authority, whether it's our parents, employers, government, or even God. Unfortunately the agenda of the secular Far Left, which sponsors such rebellion, can only lead us to one place: the anarchy of hell. This hell, however, will begin here and follow us beyond the grave.

So much for for the Utopia they've promised.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized

This is quite an interesting article from The Remnant Newspaper regarding the destruction of Europe's last ruling-Catholic monarchy. It was destroyed, however, for being Catholic. Just last month, the Catholic monarch of Luxumberg was basically dethoned for his opposition to euthanaisa. Read the (sad) article below:



The last act of the French Revolution came to a close on March 12, 2009, but hardly anyone was watching. The demonic forces unleashed over two hundred years ago took on the aim of destroying all monarchial authority in Europe. The rulers of the once Christian nations of Europe, or at least their governing authority, had all been executed, except for the tine nation of Luxembourg. On March 12, without much fanfare, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg voted to end government of their small nation by the Grand Duke.

Luxembourg was the last European nation to be governed by a real monarch. Although the tiny nation has had a parliamentary chamber, that body functioned as parliaments were originally designed to function. It was an advisory body to the Grand Duke. After new legislation was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies, Article 34 of the Constitution stated: “The Grand Duke sanctions and promulgates the laws. He makes his resolve known within three months of the vote in the Chamber.” This provision permitted the Grand Duke to perform the proper function of a monarch in a mixed form of government. He served as a check on the potential excesses of political parties legislating when they encroached on the principles of the natural law. As a hereditary ruler for life, the Grand Duke is immune from elector politics. He can thus serve as an outside supervisor of the results of the legislative process. This is exactly what he did last year in an act which precipitated the March 12 vote.

In 2008, the Chamber of Deputies voted to approve a law which authorized the intentional killing of human beings, commonly referred to by its morbid proponents as euthanasia. Such a law is contrary to the natural law. For, as St. Thomas observed in his Summa the civil law can not always punish everything that the natural law forbids but it may never sanction such evil. Now we know both by reason and divine authority that euthanasia is proscribed. It violates the first principle of the natural law - self preservation. The Church has confirmed this deduction of reason on several occasions by pronouncing euthanasia to be immoral. Even the sensus Catholicus of this overwhelming Catholic nation was clear; the populace of Luxembourg opposed the bill pushed through by the Socialist and Green parties.

Henri, the current Grand Duke, fulfilled his moral obligation as a good Catholic monarch and refused to sanction this evil legislative act. As a reward for doing the right thing, the so called “conservative” Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for an amendment to the Constitution stripping the Grand Duke of his authority to sanction laws passed by the Chamber of Deputies. The March 12 vote approved the removal of the word “sanctions” from Article 34. Prime Minister Juncker made clear the intention was to remove the right of the Grand Duke to approve of or reject laws. According to Juncker he must be required to promulgate all acts passed by the Chamber. The Luxembourg monarchy has thus entered the realm of Walt Disney monarchs inhabited by the remaining figure heads of Europe such as England, Spain and Belgium. They can parade around for tourists in quaint costumes and live in nice palaces, but they have no authority to protect and defend their nation by governing it.

The old sly tactics of the spirit of Liberalism were visible in the way this final act unfolded. The press and politicians called the Grand Duke’s prevention of this immoral euthanasia legislation a “constitutional crisis.” Now a constitutional crisis occurs when an official violates the norms and rules constituting the mode of government of a civil society. In this case the Grand Duke did not violate a single provision of the existing written constitution. He merely exercised his legitimate and rightful authority to withhold his sanction from a proposed civil law which is contrary to the natural law. And the reaction of Liberalism to his exercise of his legitimate right – strip him of that right!

Liberalism has always been willing to grant freedom and rights so long as the recipients only exercise that freedom in accordance with the wishes of Liberalism. Post French Revolutionary Liberalism claims to stand for the “rule of law,” a phrase that purports to mean that rules are not to be changed merely to reach a desired outcome. The established rules of the game, Liberalism claims, are sacrosanct.

In reality, the rules are changed whenever Liberalism does not get its way. Like a spoiled child, it picks up its toys, which it previously claimed to have given away, and goes home. A few years ago after several nations clearly voted to reject the proposed European Constitution, the forces of Liberalism decided that the right to vote on the proposed Constitution was no longer necessary. The Constitution was repackaged as a treaty needing only the approval of the governments of the member states, not a vote of the population at large.

Ireland stood as the only exception and allowed the Irish people to vote and they said no. Even this vote did not stop the forces of Liberalism who vowed to find another way. Likewise, when Grand Duke Henri uses his legal right to withhold his sanction from a law, the right he thought Liberalism had conceded to his ancestors, the modern Constitution is seen for the illusion it is. He has the right for only so long as he does not actually use it.

This pattern of give and take rights is as old as the French Revolution which began by proclaiming Liberty for all and then proceeded to guillotine those who did not use that Liberty in the way the Committee for Public Safety thought they should (i.e. by apostatizing from the Faith). Liberalism means the right to be Liberal (as defined and redefined by the reigning generation of Liberals).

Fortunately for Grand Duke Henri, his confrontation with the old enemy cost him only his legitimate governing authority and not his head. Some Liberals have at least learned that the messy business of liberally severing heads always seems to turn on them, literally.

Still, the Grand Duke is to be commended for his fortitude. One can only imagine the subtle voices of temptation that were poured into his ears by the Machiavellian politicos. “Just sanction the euthanasia law and avoid a ‘constitutional crisis.’ and conserve your rights.” “You can compromise by expressing your personal disapproval but still promulgate the bill as the ‘will of the legislature.’” “This is not an issue worth losing your privileges and rights over.”

But no, Grand Duke Henri’s Catholic conscience was too well formed for these deceits. He refused and was duly reprimanded. Again, in an absurdity of contradiction, the new “liberal” article 34 will prevent the Grand Duke from acting in accordance with his conscience. Its terms require him to promulgate all laws, even those that violate his well formed conscience – so much for “freedom of conscience!”

In lieu of tossing flowers to the Grand Duke as he makes his final bow on the decaying ruins of the theater of Christendom, I suggest all Remnant readers instead offer a rosary for His Highness that God, whose divine law leaves no good deed unrewarded and no evil deed unpunished, will bless him for his courage. While you are doing that, perhaps you can utter a prayer for the tiny population of Luxembourg who are now defenseless against the enactment of euthanasia laws and all the other gruesome ordinances of 21st Century Liberalism. These will all be possible now despite the will of their Grand Duke and, as in this case, even their own overwhelming sentiments. Libera nos ab potestate tyrannico liberalismi, Christus Rex.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

So THIS is how the Government does Economics!

Here's a great video clip describing how the government is currently handling America's economic situation:



South Park political satire is hilararious!

Archbishop Nienstedt Speaks on Notre Dame Issue

The numbers of bishops condemning Notre Dame’s decision to have Obama speak is on the rise. My own Archbishop Nienstedt now joins the ranks of great archbishops like Archbishop Dolan of New York and Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

Check out his letter to the president of Notre Dame:



Dear Father Jenkins:

I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.


Sincerely yours,
The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

St. Nancy Pelosi?

Here's a funny story-joke about Nancy Pelosi being called a saint during a Sunday Mass in Washington DC:


On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D. C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral.

He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's Mass, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."

The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle.

And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present.

Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation -- "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief.

Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed.

She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."

The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Rudy Giuliani, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."