Joy Behar, Bullying, Joel Osteen, the Bible, and Homosexuality #Catholic

Let's take a look at the definition for bully, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

Bully (verb)
bul·lied bul·ly·ing
Definition of BULLY
transitive verb
1: to treat abusively 2: to affect by means of force or coercion

intransitive verb
: to use browbeating language or behavior : bluster

I like to check the dictionary for clarification of a word's meaning, and in this case, it is necessary since people like Joy Behar are trying to redefine the word "bully" to fit their own agenda. To wit:

On November 4, Joel Osteen appeared as a guest on the television program, The View, to promote his new book, It's Your Time. Osteen reminds me a bit of Robert Schuller. He's upbeat, positive, and focuses on God's love for us. However, the "shrews of The View" couldn't resist yet another opportunity to attack Christianity. Specifically, Joy Behar showed a breathtaking amount of hubris by accusing Christians of "bullying" homosexuals by believing the Bible.

From Newsbusters:

ABC's "The View" hosted pastor Joel Osteen Tuesday, author of the book The Christmas Spirit – but the conversation took a controversial turn and went from Christmas to homosexuality. Co-host Joy Behar belittled Osteen about his conservative Christian beliefs on the matter.

ABC's Barbara Walters first popped the question in the middle of the interview, flagging it was a "controversial" topic. She referenced a previous quote made by Osteen on the show about homosexuality not being "God's best" for a person's life. Walters asked him how he felt about a Georgia pastor who recently came out and said he was gay.

After Osteen's tepid response, Behar interrupted him and flatly lectured him that homosexuality is natural. "It's not a choice, Pastor," she asserted. "It's not a choice, and therefore I don't think that God would look askance at homosexuality in that way, because it's not a choice. They're born this way, people are born this way."

When Osteen tried to respond, the comedian-cum-theologian butted in again to assert that "the Christian church should embrace that notion." She later accused Osteen of being a part of the gay bullying problem, telling him that his Biblical interpretation of homosexuality leads to bullying.

"But when you say that the Bible is against gays, that makes people get bullied, and bad things happen to people because of what the people say about that," she told Osteen.

After Behar further interrupted the guest to make her point, Osteen defended his church's stance and said that it welcomes all sinners. "If you came to our church, Joy, you would see people from all walks of life," he explained. "We're for everybody, we're not against people."

"We're not for bullying," he added. "I mean, if you follow our ministry at all, we're for uplifting people. But there's the Scripture that we can't necessarily change."

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg also joined the debate, quoting Scripture to try to prove that God doesn't judge, so neither should humans judge homosexuals. "I really believe that God said very clearly 'No one else can judge you, but Me'," Goldberg expressed.

Full article and transcript

So.... who is bullying whom?

I am getting fed up with these types of attacks on our Christian faith. And Joy Behar's bullying tactics are repugnant; exposing her hypocrisy for being "against" bullying when in fact she herself is a bully when anyone doesn't agree with her position. Her faulty logic is so full of holes and erroneous presumptions that it was amazing Osteen didn't laugh in her face. For instance:

Behar says people are "born gay." They are not. To this day, a "gay gene" has not be discovered. Plus, Behar and Goldberg overlook the fact that many women deliberately decide to live a lesbian lifestyle as a commitment to their anti-male beliefs. I read a book by a Mormon woman who was married. She started asking questions in her church, which didn't make her popular. Her husband was told, in so many words, to rein her in. He was unsuccessful. They ended up getting a divorce and the woman entered therapy with a female psychologist.

After some time, this woman decided to begin an affair with her female psychologist. Her reason? After allowing her resentment of men to reach a boil, she defiantly claimed that she was removing her mind and resources from a male-dominated society; and this included removing her body from being "sexually used" by men. It was a deliberate decision on her part.

I've also said that in the Bible, if God is going to call something an abomination, how much sense does it make for Him to force someone to live such a life by causing them to be born that way? (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13) He wouldn't and He doesn't. Some critics have said that since we don't sacrifice cattle anymore, the Laws of the Old Testament are nullified; as though following one means that all the others must be followed. But in fact, there are three types of Law defined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy- priestly law, civil law, and moral law. Although the priestly law and civil law is not observed by modern society, moral law has not been abolished, for it represents the character of God. Since God is holy and sovereign; and does not change, neither has His moral laws. Homosexuality is also condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-28. We didn't add anything to Scripture. It is what it is and it's been around for a very, very long time.

Whoopi Goldberg thought she won the point by saying God is the only one who can judge and that "no one else can judge" but God. Well, she's partially right, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (emphasis mine):

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

The Christian is to realize that outside the Church, there are the unsaved, trapped in sin and separated from God. Indeed, they will be judged (as we all will) when we stand before Him in the afterlife. But once a person enters the Church, it's a different story. Then they are held to God's standards, not the world's; and it is incumbent upon them to obey His word.

Christians are being bullied by the gay activists because we do not believe homosexuality is natural. We also believe that according to God's law, it is an abomination. This is a very hard truth. Many of us have family members or friends who are a homosexual or lesbian. But I don't know of any of my Christian friends who deliberately hang out at gay bars and call down fire and brimstone. Most Christians understand that sexuality is one of the toughest areas in which to submit to God. But we're called to surrender it, nonetheless.

Finally, I wish I could send this message to Hollywood and everyone else who is attacking the Church on this issue: Recognize boundaries. The world and the church are two separate entities. Our country has a history of enforcing a separation between church and state; and although the First Amendment of the Constitution never said that the state is to be free of religion, it does say the government should not force religion upon any citizen.

You can't have it both ways, Hollywood. You can't keep screaming at the top of your lungs that the Church can't erect nativity scenes on federal property, display the Ten Commandments in a judicial building, or hold prayer meetings during city council; yet insist that the Church reflect the world's value system. The Church is not a democracy. It does not submit to the world's system because the world's system conflicts with the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is diametrically opposed to God's divine plan.

So to "demand" that the Church start marching to the tune of the world is completely laughable. Yes, our current culture can bring lawsuits against Christians if they don't want to do business with homosexuals or lesbians (Which emphasizes my earlier question: who really is the bully?). Most of the time these cases go to court, gay activism wins. And if it is truly discrimination, those cases should win. But too often, there is an intentional aim to totally destroy anyone who does not agree with the gay activists.

After going through some soul-searching of my own, here are my positions:

1) I do not believe in gay marriage, because marriage is a sacrament of the Church. It is meant for those who have surrendered their lives to God through the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. I do, however, believe in civil unions. If this will give the individuals involved the rights to be involved in health-care issues and receive benefits, fine. To me, that seems to be the main point, anyway. If gays, who for many years have lambasted and vilified the Church for their doctrines suddenly now want the sanction of the Church, one must ask why? It makes no sense. Stick with civil unions.

2) I have no problem doing business with gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgendered, or little green men from Mars. It's not my place to judge you. You're outside of the Church and will have to answer to God someday. However, if you do start going to church (and especially if you join the Roman Catholic Church), then you're going to be faced with many doctrines that will require obedience. Meanwhile, my prayer is that all would consider the claims of Jesus Christ and be open to being changed for the Kingdom of God.

3) I do have a problem with bullying on any level. Sixty years ago, homosexuals didn't appreciate being put in a closet, have snide comments made about them, or worse -- physically attacked. Guess what? No one likes this type of treatment. If you believe that it's time you've been let out of the closet, don't try forcing Christians into one. Christianity has been around a heck of lot longer than you've been in a closet and will be around long after you're dead. Live and let live. People have differences of opinion and if it's not affecting you directly, then let it go. The clothing industry isn't trying to force Mormons to wear hot pink underwear in their temples or trying to get the Jainist Digambaras to wear clothes, period. So stop trying to bully other people into believing what you believe. Just because some groups believe that I'm a "white devil" doesn't mean I obsess on trying to prove them wrong. It's a waste of time and an infringement on the freedoms this country enjoys.

So Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, the next time you want to start tearing apart the Church because it doesn't answer to you; remember to Whom it does answer. And I'll give you a hint.

It's not Hollywood.

There Is No Such Thing As Politics: It's All About Religion

My husband and I have been watching various programs that offer commentary on today's political climate. I listen to "talk radio" often. Since 1995, I've read many political commentary books, websites, and blogs. After all of my pondering, I have become more resolute than ever in my conclusion.

It was never about politics. It has been and always will be about religion.

When I was younger, I heard the old adage, "Never talk about politics or religion with people at work or at a social gathering with those who are strangers." I remembered thinking, "How boring! What is more exciting than discovering how a person believes a civilized society should govern themselves; and how he orders his world by his beliefs in a higher power?" Obviously I have little use for small talk although I understand its necessity, especially in social situations.

However, I tried my best to follow the unspoken rule although I couldn't help offering an opinion every once in awhile on one or the other. One of the reasons I love my family so much is because we discuss these topics often.

Lately, though, I've been noticing a seismic shift in culture. I believe it has shocked people because for many years, we were living in a country where the Judeo-Christian values were reflected in our culture. At one time, our entertainment was sensitive to these values. Not anymore.

And it used to be acceptable to disagree with someone without wanting to rip their face off. But today, we're seeing the Biblical equivalent of a "gnashing of teeth." Disagreement is no longer acceptable. Total submission to the leftist political ideology is demanded. If one questions it, or worse, defies it -- then there is literally hell to pay. They will try to destroy you.

Which brings me to my point: I used to separate the two - politics and religion. But now I believe that it has always been about religion and in particular, about the God of the Old and New Testament. Look around the world. Is there such an uproar about Buddhists or Taoists? Do Hindus get smacked around in the press or mocked in late night TV? And Muslims? Everyone cowers in fear because no one wants to get their head chopped off, so we tiptoe around them. But both Judaism and Christianity are targets for destruction because...

Because why?

Because both of these religions have tenets of faith that will not bend to the world. These beliefs affect a person's life. It affects how they vote, where they live, how they conduct themselves. Those who are believers are not beholden to any government, they are beholden to God. Submission is made in loving trust and obedience to God, not hammered out by an overbearing political system. It is not about control, but love. And love gives. It does not take.

Evil is showing its face more frequently, now, and not just in the darkness but the light. We are witnessing more crime being committed in broad daylight. Just the other day, a man sprayed a woman with his own...um, body fluid in a supermarket. A supermarket! She turned her back and bam! She was assaulted by some man who had no boundaries whatsoever. We are seeing these kinds of stories in the news with greater frequency.

Think of what being raised in a family that values religion does to a person, to a society. Think of how such precepts, which were consistently practiced in our country for centuries, resulted in a society that knew how to behave, how to treat one another. Now look at our country without religion and tell me what you see. Rampant crime, promiscuity, abortion, perversity, abuse, addiction, violence, laziness, disrespect, and cruelty, to name a few. And politics claim to fix them but has never delivered.

No changes within the political system will remove these things. Only when a person gets right with God will things change. Except we're now living in a society that is circling around believers, wanting to strangle the truth out of them. Which is us, if you're a believer in God and refuse to bow to the god of self.

Evil has always existed but before it was relegated to the seamier parts of town. Now our whole country is becoming seamy, corrupt, and cheap. We must pray, of course, for our world. But we also need to ask God to give us strength and grace to stand strong and not give in. The politicians are used to buying off their critics. But with a believer in God, it doesn't work that way, especially if you're a Christian.

Because we've been bought already at a price the world would never be able to match, let alone surpass. The One who we belong to loves us, and will bring us through this journey to finally arrive at the home we were created to inhabit -- everlasting life with Him.

"My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust." - Psalm 91:2 (RSV)

Dr. Ken Howell, Reinstated by the University of Illinois! #Catholic

This is fantastic news, not only for Dr. Howell, but for all who cherish our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Continue to hold Dr. Howell and all Christian teachers in prayer. The battle is heating up.

Earlier today we received confirmation from the University of Illinois that it is reinstating Dr. Kenneth Howell as an adjunct professor this fall. The University terminated Dr. Howell’s employment earlier this summer after a student complained that he was “offended” by Dr. Howell’s academic discussion of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior in an Introduction to Catholicism course. The student was not even enrolled in the class.

In a letter to ADF, the University states that Dr. Howell will be asked to teach Introduction to Catholicism this fall. This is a tremendous win for Dr. Howell’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights. However, ADF will continue to monitor the situation.

Full article

Gnashing of Teeth: The Growing Hatred of Christianity #Catholic

I love the American Thinker's contributor, "Robin of Berkeley."

For those who are unfamiliar with her, "Robin" is a psychotherapist living in Berkeley, California -- and in her words, a "recovering liberal." Robin has some truly amazing insights into our current political world. She takes on everything from the vapid robots who idolize President Obama, to global warming paranoia, to Sarah Palin, to pondering whether Jesus Christ is a Marxist. If you've not read her before, I'd suggest starting at the beginning with her first article (located at the bottom of the list, which is linked above) and work your way up. I've read her columns aloud to my husband a few times on long car trips and then we discuss them. It's good stuff.

This latest column is brilliant in its ability to pinpoint people's hatred of Christianity:

It's funny how trivial events somehow get seared into your brain. This one is from years ago, when I was enjoying a yogurt on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley.

Suddenly, a large exotic bug appeared and started dancing around. Its iridescent colors caught the sun and glistened like a rainbow. A crowd formed to watch its antics in shared delight.

Out of nowhere, a lunatic pushed through the crowd. I'd seen this guy before -- paranoid, menacing. His rage toward the bug slit me like a knife. The insect was getting attention, people were happy, and he was out for revenge.

The man bolted through the crowd, possessed. He jumped on the bug, over and over and again. People gasped. A child cried. And then, as quickly as it began, it was all over.

Silently, numbly, the crowd dispersed. The man, now triumphant, smiled hideously. I threw away the yogurt, which was now rendered tasteless.

I'll never forget the look of blind hatred on that man's face. It communicated this: "I want what you have."

And: "If I can't have it, I'll destroy it."

She goes on to explain that while perusing a local bookstore for books on Christianity, she noticed how many mocked Christianity. Many books were obvious in their disdain and outright hatred of this particular religion. She wondered why people couldn't just move along if they didn't like Christianity. Why did they have to try to destroy it?

Why, indeed. I have been reminded lately of all the scripture verses that say "there shall be wailing and a gnashing of teeth." I never thought I'd see anything in my lifetime that would equate such an expression. I was wrong.

This phrase brings to mind the babbling of Janine Garafalo when she accused the Tea Party of being racist, and Bill Maher who said that the American people were stupid and had to be led to change that was best for them. Joy Behar, who is as joyless as they come, claimed Christianity is no different than terrorism. These people make the most outrageous statements, but because it is anti-Christian, not only is it tolerated but applauded.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Rom. 1:28-32 RSV)

Robin says this (emphasis mine):

In the past I would simply put on my therapist cap with people like these. I'd probe their childhood for evidence of maltreatment. I'd label them as narcissists and antisocial personalities.

But now I have a different worldview, one that goes much deeper than just the psychological. Now I understand that this world is infused with the Divine. And that there is a competing force, one that is the polar opposite.

I now have a word for that creepy feeling deep down in my gut. And I finally understand the source.

Now I see what's really behind the campaign to banish religion; it's to render us utterly helpless. Because after all, without God, what protection is there in this brutal world?

Exactly.

It is becoming more evident that those who do not believe in God, those who reject Christianity, are no longer satisfied with merely rejecting something with which they don't agree. They need to destroy it. Because if these haters cannot obtain joy and contentment from their own poor choices, they are determined to destroy anything that gives that very joy and contentment to others. This is why we see a rise in militant atheism, radical political ideologies that leave no room for faith, and why national leaders are desperately trying to squelch something like the Tea Party movement which obviously is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I've met a few liberals. And from my interactions with the most radical of them, I have concluded 1) they never grew beyond their childhood emotional wounds and 2) they are determined to make the world pay for that injustice.

When I was in grade school, I had my share of mean-spirited teasing and mockery. I used to come home in tears, not understanding why I couldn't fit in or just simply be left alone. It was a difficult time in my childhood, but then something profound happened. I asked for a personal Bible as a Christmas present when I was twelve and got it. I started to read the Bible and pray. It was then that I first started to understand that one of the things required of me as a Christian was to forgive my enemy.

This grace to forgive our enemies frees us from our natural fleshly desire to seek vengeance. Without it, we would constantly keep score, attempting to "level the playing field," and try to ensure that life would be fair for everyone. Except it doesn't work that way. Life is never fair but what is more important is our response to it. Our response can either make or break our attitude, our emotional health, and either bless those around us or curse them.

I think we're witnessing the cursing.

Those who see us are now faced with a choice. Either consider the Man called Jesus Christ or reject Him. Either admit you are a sinner in need of salvation from God or reject Him. Either humble yourself before God and deny yourself or continue seeking the empty promises of the world. Many cannot or will not consider Christianity. In their mind, it is filled with rules and authority and relinquishing control over one's life. Unbelievers want nothing to do with it. They'll continue hurtling down the road toward a cliff because that's what they want to do.

Meanwhile, for those of us who try to warn them, (and are safely kept on the side of the road by the hand of God) we are beginning to see that many of them would like to first take some of us out on their way to that cliff. The good news is that we can continue to pray for them. And as far as I know, there isn't any invention or law in existence that will prevent us from doing just that.

Jewish Former NY Mayor Ed Koch - Enough With the Attacks on the Pope #Catholic

A surprising voice in defending the Pope has emerged. The ex-Mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, recently expressed frustration at what he sees as a vicious attack on religion:

Koch, a Conservative Jew, says he disagrees with the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Judaism) on abortion, homosexuality, divorce, contraception and more, but nevertheless says that the Church has a right to hold to these beliefs and much of the attack on it today stems from opposition to those teachings.

“Many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice,” writes Koch. “The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce.”

Koch added: “I disagree with the Church on all of these positions. Nevertheless, it has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs. … Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave.”

Well, what do you know. The ex-Mayor is right. Progressives hate the Catholic Church and any orthodox religion with a passion because it refuses to pander to their beliefs. Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who believe that the Church should become more "modern" by embracing relativism rather than the Bible.

I love the final words of the article. Koch ended by saying:

“Enough is enough. Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the US and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests. I will close with a paraphrase of the words of Jesus as set forth in John 8:7: He [or she] that is without sin among you, let him [or her] cast the next stone.”

Amen.

Jason Mattera, The Young Face of a Patriot #tcot #sgp #teaparty

Most of my ministry has been with encouraging young people, especially young women. When I was an academic/pastoral advisor for a ministry school, the students were mostly "twentysomethings." I thoroughly enjoyed encouraging them and challenging some of their viewpoints - but always found them refreshing. It's difficult to resist the energy of youth. When they are focused, they can be passionate and compelling. Some of the boldest evangelistic campaigns have often been started by the youth.

I was almost shocked to see someone like Jason Mattera. An earnest, good-looking young man, filled with vigor and drive, he seemed a perfect candidate to fall into Obama's army of youth who were enamored of the presidential candidate and played a key role in getting Barack Obama elected as the President of the United States. However, Jason Mattera is proving to be the White House's worst nightmare.

Mattera is the author of a new book, Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation. I admit I haven't read the book but will. I am greatly encouraged that a young man like Mattera is willing to go head-to-head with these ignorant liberal politicians who support something like the monstrous healthcare bill without knowing what was in it. For a hilarious demonstration, watch this clip from Sean Hannity's show last night featuring Mattera as a guest:

Is that wild, or what?! I love how Al Franken tells him to "shut up and listen." Of course it isn't shocking when you think of these corrupt politicians trying desperately to scuttle under a rock like a cockroach when the light is shined directly on them. They love to get in front of a camera to tell us how they're "helping" us. But the moment someone starts to ask them the tough questions, they get defensive and ugly. Thank God for someone like Jason Mattera who intends on holding their feet to the fire.

I am greatly encouraged by Jason because I saw what was happening with the youth. They are notoriously impressionable and when surrounded by leftist professors and a liberal media that is nothing more than a propaganda machine - it is no wonder they swept Obama into office. The youth today have not been taught critical thinking skills. If they had, they would have been asking some hard questions during the presidential campaign. As it was, much emphasis was placed on emotion and this is the result. Jason Mattera is the only young person I know (other than my fiery 25-year old cousin) who has exposed the liberal agenda and voiced outrage.

I predict that Jason Mattera will get his own talk show one day. He has all the makings for being a phenomenal host: he is very sharp, well-spoken, and passionate. He drives home his points with a delightful, "brother," which just adds to his youthful charm. He is one to watch.

Support this young man any way you can. If you're on Twitter, follow him @JasonMattera. Then "tweet" the heck out of him. Also check out his blog and sign up for his updates. He is definitely one who deserves the support of conservatives. God bless you, Jason. We need about 100,000 like you.

P.S. If you use the Amazon link on the right, know that I just became an Amazon Affiliate because of this book.

Jesus Christ: The Ultimate Revolutionary #tcot #Catholic #sgp

One of the things I love about Jesus Christ is how He exposed the enemy's strategy - that lies and hatred imprison but truth sets the captive free.

Socialists who try to co-opt Jesus Christ's message have it all wrong. Jesus Christ wasn't coming to "force" the government to treat men and women fairly. He came to break the chains of the devil, to free mankind from the bondage of sin so that all may have a relationship with God. Only with Jesus Christ is there true freedom, which is why the enemy has controlled evil dictators from day one and steered them toward one ultimate goal: the total and complete destruction of the Christian faith.

Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Liberals - the whole lot of them, are so ignorant of history that it is almost embarrassing. Actually, it's shameful. But then again, those who subscribe to such political ideology aren't exactly friends of Christianity, either.

I propose a change in perspective, a realization, and perhaps a heavy acceptance, of what exactly we're dealing with as we watch the world crumble around us. This is an ancient battle and one that has not touched the United States of America until now. It's easy to focus on the political ramifications of the healthcare "reform" bill because it's obvious. It's close to the surface and an easy mark. Americans know it is wrong for the government to dictate whether they have health insurance or not. Americans did not want this bill but it was forced upon them. All of the protests, the rallies, the letters, the phone calls, the heated "town hall" debates - all of it didn't matter to the politicians who claim that this is a solution. Even though 59% of Americans made it very clear they did not want this healthcare reform bill, the politicians not only turned a deaf ear to them, they patted themselves on the back as they made backroom deals to ensure it went through.

Again, liberals don't know history.

All we need to do is take a good look at Cuba. Michael Moore, the permanently-deluded darling of the leftists, created a film, "Sicko" that glorified the socialist Cuban healthcare system. What many people do not realize is that there are three different tiers of healthcare in Cuba. One for foreigners (who pay cold, hard cash for the privilege), the Cuban elite, and then the average Cuban. From the National Review, The Myth of Cuban Healthcare:

To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.

The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.

The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch.

Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”

The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”

And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)

So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.

Che Guevera's daughter praised the socialist U.K. healthcare system, but from what I've read, the conditions are deplorable. Recently a young 22-year old man died from thirst in a U.K. hospital because he couldn't get water from the 'lazy nurses.' It is beyond appalling. It is horrifying to think that a developed country would descend to this point of inhumanity. It's not the first case I've read of socialism's failure to provide healthcare to those in need. There are other stories and it's heartbreaking to read them. And I loved the last line of that story about the 22-year old man: This week a task force called on nurses to sign a public pledge that they will treat everyone with compassion and dignity. Are you kidding me? It takes a public pledge signing to remind nurses of what their responsibilities were from day one of nursing? Truly unbelievable.

Such a pledge hasn't been necessary for U.S. healthcare - but may be on our horizon.

Back to freedom and truth. Last night, Ann Coulter was prevented from giving a talk at a university in Ottawa, Canada by a group of ignorant students, wielding sticks and stones. (They elevated the childish chant to reality and yes, they could have broken bones.) What is so amazing is how those who think of themselves as defenders of whatever is good and right - are so deluded as to think that stifling free speech is a good thing. Such people can't even see the irony in their position. They are blind. How is it that a student can claim that one person's freedom to their own opinion is "wrong" if it doesn't line up with what they believe - is a good thing for intellectual discourse? Why not try to prove the other person wrong with spirited debate? Instead, leftists would rather muzzle those they disagree with instead of debating the merits of the issue. Could it be that they are incapable of the job?

Freedom is the only clothing Truth can wear. And Freedom cannot exist without Truth. The two are inextricably joined and cannot flourish without the other. Only when truth has the freedom to exist will societies receive truth's reward. Which is enlightenment, advancement, prosperity, development, innovation, and creativity just to name a few. In other words: light. Look at history. Whenever truth has been oppressed, there has been darkness - society in bondage. No growth. No real creativity. No prosperity. It has always, always led to enslavement and ultimately death.

Those who hate truth, hate freedom. Those who hate freedom, will... (wait for it) hate Christianity. Because of Jesus Christ's words: The truth will set you free. And Who is Truth?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

It is amusing to me that liberals in the Catholic Church say, "But that is your truth," when faced with such bothersome issues as sin and Christianity's "narrow" views. They are quick to point out that "truth" in their estimation, is subjective. However - when someone expresses an opinion that collides with their worldview (in essence, that person's truth), it's abominable to them, outrageous - and must be silenced at all costs. It is hilarious, actually, when you try to point that out to them. Sadly, a sense of humor is one of the first casualties when transforming into a liberal robot.

I recently volunteered for a local politician's campaign. Although I sense darker times for our country, I cannot help but fight it. I will continue to freely express my opinion on this blog as long as I can and thank God that for today, I do live in a free country. But in order to continue to live freely, I must fight for truth. As Orwell said, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

And that is why Jesus Christ was the ultimate revolutionary. He dared to tell the truth to His disciples, to Pontias Pilate, and to the world.

Are Catholics Not Allowed to Be #Catholic? #tcot #sgp

I turned on the comment moderation because this post may upset some and quite frankly, I'm done with nasty combox rants. I'm all for spirited debate but viciousness? No.

You may have heard about the lesbian couple in Colorado who tried to enroll a child in their care into a Catholic school, knowing the Archdiocese had a policy not to accept children from same-sex couples. The Archbishop of Denver, Archbishop Chaput, made it clear that the school could not receive a child from a couple that were knowingly out of unity with the Catholic faith. His response (emphasis mine):

“In many ways times have changed, but the mission of Catholic schools has not,” the prelate stated. “The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values.”

Archbishop Chaput also stressed that the “Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are 'bad,' or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.”

“These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society,” he said. “The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

In light of this, the “policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves,” said the prelate.

“Our schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

Full article

As you can imagine, this didn't sit too well with the "diversity" crowd. But I am touched by the eloquence of Archbishop Chaput and the brave stand of Fr. Breslin, who made the decision not to admit the child to the school. It isn't easy to stand for the faith when so many acquiesce to the culture, in spite of a religious conflict.

Here is what puzzles me. If you join a club, there are rules. Because you want to belong, you adhere to the rules. But there must have been something about that club that compelled you to join. When people join a church, they are compelled by its tenets of the faith, their commitment toward service, or the many things a church does (At least I hope so.). One does not make such a decision with their eyes closed.

So who doesn't realize that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, and in fact opposes it? Who doesn't know that Catholicism teaches that those who have homosexual tendencies are called to lead a celibate life and to carefully handle relationships with those of the same sex? Unless a person is living under a rock, the answer would be, no one.

There are plenty of churches and schools who would accept a gay couple. Why isn't this lesbian couple attending a Methodist church and sending their child to that school? I truly cannot fathom the motivation someone has to make choices that will deliberately be confrontative and cause difficulties. What must that be like, getting up every day and intentionally planning to force a religious institution to bend to your will because they believe something you don't?

Here's the deal, activists. You have a choice. There are plenty of other alternatives to the Catholic Church. Purposefully causing problems and throwing tantrums when you don't get your way doesn't strike me as very "Christian-like," either. If you can't respect the Catholic Church's beliefs, then perhaps you don't belong there. Because following Christ isn't about following what is popular. It's about laying down your life for Him.

I'll close with a quote from Charles Danahur's article, "Tolerance Goes Both Ways, Denver":

Some people will not be satisfied until the church is either run out of business, is silenced or abandons all principle. We may never all agree but hopefully we can be tolerant of the church's position and respect their dedication to the faith.

Catholicism, Social Justice, and the Health Care Debate #tcot #sgp #Catholic

When I returned to the Catholic Church, I was aware of its allegiance to promoting "social justice." I've had a few readers comment about my position, wondering if perhaps I was being too hard with my criticism. The recent health care issue in the U.S. has brought it to the surface again as many priests and their bishops push for health care reform under the guise of "social justice."

I understand that Catholicism has long been an advocate for the disadvantaged in our society. Part of the reason I returned has been my lifelong admiration of its pro-life stance. No other church has been as committed to life issues as the Catholic Church. I also have been proud of Catholicism's history as the creators of the first hospitals and schools. Throughout the world, you will find Catholics who are dedicated toward educating and caring for orphans, and also caring for the poor.

However, I see a vast difference between showing compassion to those who are in need versus becoming "activists" for their situations. Jesus said we will always have the poor with us. He spoke often about how we were called to love and show them mercy. He did not say we were obligated to storm the gates of the Roman government demanding justice for them.

I read an interesting article on Inside Catholic about a Catholic's response to the health care reform debate. The man wrote a letter to his priest, emphasizing his dissatisfaction with the promotion of a certain viewpoint. Unfortunately, it would seem the priest did not appreciate an honest opinion and instead took the opportunity to belittle and condemn the man.

From the article:

Unfortunately, there are clergy who not only contribute to the misunderstanding but also treat respectful disagreement with condescension. The following e-mail was passed along to me by an acquaintance who wrote to his parish priest to question the wisdom of placing the nation's health-care system in the hands of the federal government. (I've edited the e-mail to protect the identity of its author.) The priest's response:

It is so unfortunate that you have such a myopic vision and have made the conscious decision to NOT learn anything about Social Justice, that you would rather listen and believe the words of Hannity and Limbaugh rather than [local bishop's name] or any Roman Catholic authority on the teachings of the Catholic Church especially in the area of Social Justice and the Social gospel.

I was contacted by Bishop _____ and [another bishop's] Secretary. They both were disappointed in your mindset and your refusal to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I pray that someday you will spend the time and effort to learn, understand and comprehend the Church's view on Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, and the understanding that the Body of Christ isn't made up of only those people you believe to be given the recognition. With that being said, I do not want you to send me any E-Mails or forward any articles that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. I pray that God may have mercy on you (emphasis added).

The lack of pastoral courtesy requires little comment, except to say that this sort of demeaning clerical tone pushes the suppliant further away and exacerbates the discontent.

It is proof once again, of the divide between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholics in the pew. Like the immigration reform issue (which the U.S.C.C.B. supports) the health care reform issue exposes another major disconnect between leadership and laity. I don't care how you slice it, the health care reform is not about health care. It's about control. It's a Trojan Horse the U.S.C.C.B. has gladly received, believing it to be a good deal for the needy. However, at what cost? Not only will there be a huge financial burden placed on the taxpayer, there will be an overall loss of freedom for our country.

If the government is in charge of healthcare, they will be able to dictate what businesses must do to insure their employees. More regulations will be on the way regarding what we can eat and drink. And anyone who doesn't believe healthcare will be rationed is living in a fantasy world. Nothing the government touches ever succeeds. In fact, whatever the government involves itself with only grows more bloated and inefficient. Their takeover of the automobile industry hasn't helped. We all know the incompetency of their schools. And now they want to take on healthcare.

Here is my ultimate beef with "social justice." It isn't anyone else's responsibility to gain justice for me but myself. No one is in charge of my life. I'm the CEO, the owner, the one who makes choices whether I do something or not. Thank God I had parents who taught me the importance of personal responsibility. Sadly, many in our society never learned that lesson and as a result, they are constantly looking for others to save them.

Those who promote "social justice" are only too happy to accommodate them. They rush in with a Messiah complex, eager to tell someone how to live their life. Meanwhile, the person who is in a difficult place rarely realize that they've given up their freedom in the process. I have no problem with helping anyone. But I do have a problem taking care of someone when they are able to take care of themselves. I have a problem with those who can work but refuse because it's easier to depend upon government subsidies. I have a problem with those who make a series of bad choices and then depend upon the government to bail them out.

I have a problem with a religious organization who tells me that being concerned about such things is wrong and claims I don't "understand."

Here's another thing: The U.S. government, on its present course, is in direct competition with the Catholic Church.

How? Because the government wants to take the place of the Church by providing "justice." I can't help but wonder where the U.S.C.C.B. thinks its going to land when all the dust settles. I don't think its too far-fetched to say that the government will be quickly eyeing church property and tax-exemption status to fill their coffers. If the U.S.C.C.B. thinks its going to get along famously with the government because they share the same concerns, I'd say think again. Marxism and Communism have little love for religion. As a matter of fact, they hate it. Religion brings truth and truth brings freedom. They won't have it. St. Maximillan Kolbe and other priests who died in the concentration camps are proof.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to our bishops. These are men who have served the Church and have taken vows to love her and prepare her children for the afterlife. But I strongly disagree with them on these issues. Like the writer said in the article quoted above, "There is no 'Church view' on health care reform but there is a position taken by the bishops conference." I'm saddened by how some bishops are turning a deaf ear to the people by dismissing them as clueless. I'm all for spirited debate. What I'm not for is a "sit down and shut up" directive.

Throughout history, the Catholic Church has made a tremendous difference in the lives of millions. It has contributed to the success of many communities and countries. I am proud of my heritage as a Catholic and continue to be as the Church shares itself with the world.

However, I find it disturbing that while many in our country have fought for a "separation of Church and State," those same people are silent when the Catholic Church joins forces with the government when it is in their interests. Why is it acceptable to criticize "the religious right" when they object to an obvious persecution of their faith (such as banning the religious connotation of Christmas) but yet religion involved with politics is fine - as long as the religion supports the current party line? When President George W. Bush was in office, Christians often heard about its unacceptable level of influence. But now that we have a different President, suddenly its okay?

Color me unimpressed and unconvinced. Mixing government with religion has never bode well for its citizens. I fear we're about to experience this truth even more if we remain on our current path.

Fr. Z's Advice to Liberals And Thoughts About Submission #Catholic #tcot

Fr. Zuhlsdorf (affectionately called "Fr. Z" by his followers), has an excellent post about the new translation of the Roman Missal and how it's driving the liberals apoplectic.

It's a very funny post, complete with calling the Sour Grapes Brigade, "Vat-Trads." (Many Catholics who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass are often called "rad-trads" by those who sneer at Catholic tradition.) Since my return to the Catholic Church, I've been absolutely amazed by the level of defiance toward the Magisterium. It's bad enough to have the laity nurse such resentments, but to have the clergy encourage it is to me, shameful.

For whatever reason, one of the "faith lessons" I learned during my years within the non-denominational churches was submission. I remember listening to Elisabeth Elliot on her radio show talk about women and submission. She was the only Protestant woman brave enough to not only talk about it, but promote it. (By the way, she is the sister of Catholic convert Dr. Thomas Howard.) I knew it was a profound lesson and one I needed to learn, to live, to embrace fully. I knew there was a secret to submission that would reveal something that God wanted to remove, which after some time, I realized was fear.

Because within submission, there is trust.

That, my friends, is where I feel the dissidents miss a huge component of our faith. There is a lack of trust in leadership, and ultimately, in God. Why else would they so willingly pursue empty philosophies that offer them nothing? Why else desire the elevation of flesh when the death of it is commanded by our Lord, and then miss the glorious new life that is the joyful consequence of that death?

Fear.

Fear of letting go of control, fear of not being loved, fear of not being validated. And all of those fears are exposed when one submits. Now I'm not saying this is easy to do. Quite the contrary. I'm still given the opportunity to submit in many ways and it is always, always a reminder to me to trust in God, that He knows what is best and has a plan. His will is always a much better choice than following my own.

Years ago, there was something called "The Shepherding Movement" within many churches. It was submission turned on its head. The church members were dominated by leadership. They couldn't make a decision such as buying a car or home without getting permission from their pastor to do so. It wounded many and caused them to distrust leadership because as you may have suspected, leaders took advantage of it.

There are many difficult choices for the Christian as he or she lives their life. Sometimes you have to walk away from an unhealthy or disobedient church. I did. But it's important to remember to keep those who are disobedient in prayer. Still, I have never understood people who deliberately remain within a group or organization with which they disagree. Why not find a group that shares your values?

Unfortunately, Catholic dissidents (who include some clergy), find some level of satisfaction in remaining within the Church while venting their poison to all who will listen. Jesus mentioned that the tares grow along with the wheat. But does the wheat worry about the tares around it? No. It does what wheat does and keeps growing.

I have to remind myself of this sometimes, because it is too easy to wish such people would leave the Catholic Church and head toward the Anglicans. (And many of them would quickly wish that the more traditional Catholics would leave, too. But where would we go?!) I believe the pendulum is starting to swing back and more Catholics are realizing that who we are as Catholics needs to be rooted in our history. Trying to use modern society as a yardstick for Catholic identity has only resulted in a diluted faith and confusion.

Now I'm trying to figure out Catholic identity. I don't believe it can be found within dissension, but in trusting the centuries of godly leadership that the Catholic Church abundantly had, (and still has) but that a small, noisy segment of our current society is trying to block.

To steal the motto from Glenn Beck, I say this to Catholics: Remember who you are. We are the Church that the enemy cannot destroy if we continue to trust, and have faith. To those who are liberal, I say take the leap. Trusting is a much greater adventure than complaining any day of the week.

Open Letter to USCCB Regarding Postcard Campaign on Immigration Reform #tcot #sgp #Catholic

Dear USCCB (and Justice for Immigration),

You surely have chosen one of the most divisive issues of this country to support.

Despite the fact that a Zogby poll found most Christians and Jews disagree with the leaders about the problem of illegal immigration, you have decided to not only push for immigration reform, but to press your dioceses to support it by organizing a postcard campaign, pressuring Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

I understand your position - to an extent. The Catholic Church has a long history in the United States with immigrants. Many parishes were the anchor in immigrant neighborhoods. German, Italian, and Polish Masses were commonly heard in the Eastern portion of the country. For decades, these hard-working immigrants became the backbone of their communities as they wove their Catholic faith with their fresh love for their new country. They assimilated. Their children and grandchildren ended up moving to the suburbs and Catholic high schools and universities began to dot the landscape of cities throughout the nation.

Assimilate is the key word.

President Roosevelt had this to say about immigration (emphasis mine):

"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.

"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship."

and

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

"We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

Source: Snopes

A copy of this letter, obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, can be viewed here.

This past Sunday, at Mass, our pastor delivered a homily that presented the postcard campaign and encouraged everyone to fill one out next week so it can be sent to Congress. The pastor's reasoning called up the Church's commitment to social justice and how everyone has the right to find work within their own country. He then emphasized the Church's desire to see families kept together.

I felt myself grow angry as he continued. I heard the man behind me whispering to his wife. Finally, he couldn't take it anymore. For the first time in my life, I watched as a man and his wife left church in the middle of a homily. That's how angry people are regarding this issue.

Is it a wise choice to deliberately withhold ourselves from the blessing of the Holy Eucharist - over a political issue? Even if this issue does have a human rights component, it is not appropriate to first, insist that everyone in the Church jump on the bandwagon with the liberal mindset and second, drive home the point during a homily.

Before I returned to the Catholic Church in 2008, I noticed the trend of its leaders to embrace "immigration reform." Do you know what most people hear when they hear that phrase? They hear the word "amnesty." Do you know who these people are - these faithful Catholics sitting in the pews? They are the great-grandsons and great-granddaughters of those German, Italian, Polish, and Irish immigrants. Those very same immigrants who, when entering the United States at Ellis Island 1) Did it legally 2) Did not experience any "extra" help from the government to start their new life in the U.S. and 3) Worked hard and joyfully embraced their citizenship in their new country.

You are talking to people who understand it is no one else's responsibility to help them succeed but their own. People who understand the importance and power of hard work. No one - not the government, nor their former country, gave their ancestors anything. My great-grandfather from Italy came here with a few dollars in his pocket. Same with his 19 year old Italian bride. They both were migrant workers until he saved enough to start his own produce company, which still operates today.

That was the kind of spirit that built this country and built the many Catholic parishes across this nation.

Now we have a different type of immigrant. One who isn't as interested in becoming a U.S. citizen. One whose allegiance is not to this country but to the one they left. This larger group of illegal immigrants are primarily from the South, with Mexico and Guatemala being more common. They've been organized by powerful corporations that want to exploit them for cheap labor. They have well-connected lobbyists and advocacy groups representing them. They "demand" much from U.S. citizens but yet refuse to learn our language and quite often, call Americans derogatory names while thrusting an attitude of entitlement in their faces.

This is what you, the USCCB, is supporting. This is what you are pressuring your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters to embrace.

We have now reached 10% unemployment. Loyal citizens of our country are without jobs and many are losing hope. These are the same citizens who often fill the pews on Sundays. Why would they be more concerned about an illegal immigrant - one who most likely has taken a job away from a legal citizen - gaining amnesty?

It is not right and it is definitely not right for the USCCB to expect its parishioners to support this.

I understand the USCCB's desire to promote justice and family integrity. However, we do have laws in this country and they have not been obeyed. Should there not be laws pertaining to the citizenship of this great country? Is it realistic to expect us to welcome every immigrant, no matter what the capability is of our society to receive them? If that is the case, most of the world would love to live in the United States but the United States cannot accommodate the whole world.

Then there is the issue of national identity. Perhaps it's not so surprising that a group who has struggled with its own Catholic identity would so eagerly pursue an issue that refuses to consider seriously whether such a thing as national identity should guide our laws and policies.

I will not be filling out a postcard. I resent being asked during a time when my mind, heart, and soul were to be focused on God. I ended up praying during the homily, asking God for grace. I was able to see the point of view of the USCCB, and understand they are committed to defending the defenseless and seeking justice for those who are exploited. But those of us who are the great-grandchildren of legal immigrants understand this: Our country is great because of its people, and its laws. Take away either, and we will no longer be the country that attracts so many who desire to live within it. Ignoring our laws will not improve this situation. Being realistic, will.

Nancy Pelosi: Deaf, Dumb, and Blind to #Catholic Doctrine

A famous quote, allegedly from the Chinese, says, May you live in interesting times. If that isn't a good description of our current age, I don't know what is. I also believe that Nancy Pelosi, with all of her arrogance and misunderstandings of what it means to be Catholic, has reached her public apex at the exact moment the Church needs her the most. Need? Yes, need. I'll explain.

I read part of the story last night about Pelosi's interview with Newsweek's Eleanor Clift. The interview is filled with hubris and misplaced priorities. At one point, Pelosi has the gall to say that the "free will" of women outranks the Church's teaching on pro-life issues.

"I have some concerns about the church's position respecting a woman's right to choose," Pelosi responds. "I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith."

"I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she continues. "And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will."

Difference of opinion? No, Madame Speaker, it is not a "difference of opinion." It is an issue of either believing life has value or not. If you belong to the Catholic Church and call yourself a Catholic, you are saying that you believe the doctrines of Catholicism, which according to Catechism of the Catholic Church, says quite a bit about abortion. (And by the way, this is the Catechism created as a result of Vatican II. From Pope John Paul II: "[the Catechism] is to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will.") Below are the specific doctrines:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

Pelosi has defended her position by claiming women have a "right to choose" and at one point, even boldly showed her ignorance of Church teaching by claiming that the Doctors of the Faith "weren't sure" when life began. I have heard liberal Catholics defend their belief that abortion is acceptable by saying they are acting according to their conscience. (Part Three: Life in Christ, Article Six: Moral Conscience in the CCC.) I found an interesting section under IV Erroneous Judgement:

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Pelosi is blinded by her devotion to the Democratic Party's platform and it has guided her more than the Catholic Church. She has placed the Democratic Party as her god, and as such, is now experiencing the consequences of her divided allegiance. She claims to be a Catholic, but obviously, she is not a Catholic first.

I say that she has come at a perfect time because I believe in the United States, we are undergoing a fierce battle for Catholic identity. For many years, those who adhered to the teachings of the Magisterium were mocked and the Pope derided. Many Catholics who worship at the altar of the Democratic Party have consistently bashed the Catholic Church for her stance on abortion, homosexuality, and the priesthood. This is now coming to a head.

The more Nancy Pelosi tries to unsuccessfully defend her erroneous Catholic doctrine, the more opportunity faithful Catholics have to state exactly what the Church teaches. The more Pelosi tries to bend the faith to her own "opinion" and preference, the more opportunity the Church has to show the integrity of its doctrine. Pelosi is, to a certain degree, a gift to Catholics who are asserting Catholic identity within the public square. I now am reading the Catechism more than ever when these issues come up and am humbled by the wisdom of our spiritual forefathers.

Yes, Nancy, there is such a thing as moral absolutism and you are clearly on the wrong side of it. It is my prayer that God will give me the grace to beseech His throne to give you eyes to see and ears to hear. Because at the moment, you are deaf, dumb, and blind.

Why We Will Always Have War #tcot #sgp #teaparty

Because leftist, Marxist, Communist, one-worlders, climate-change Chicken Littles, islamofascist, feminazi, Maoist-worshipping radicals won't leave the rest of us alone.

And we will always have to fight to get them to go away.

Dad Barred From Taking Daughter to Church: Welcome to Americastan #tcot #sgp #teaparty

I just read about this case this morning and my jaw dropped (emphasis mine):

Chicago (CBS) - A father has been hit with an unusual restraining order: Keep his daughter away from any religion that is not Jewish. After the girl's parents split up, the father went to a Catholic church and had the girl baptized, CBS station WBBM-TV reports.

Rebecca Reyes says she wants her daughter raised Jewish, and that her husband pledged to do so, even going so far as to convert to Judaism himself.

"That's not accurate," he responded. "I'm not going to call her a liar, but … at the very least she's mistaken regarding that conversation."

But Rebecca Reyes says it's her estranged husband who made the mistake when he had their daughter baptized. In her petition, she argues that if he's allowed to raise the child in any faith other than Judaism, he will cause their daughter irreparable harm.

Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he first saw the petition for a temporary restraining order against his client, he couldn't believe what he was reading.

"I almost fell off my chair," he said. "I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban. This is America. We have a First Amendment right of freedom of religion."

Full Article

Now. Contrast this situation with this one, where a Christian homeschooling mom was recently ordered by the court to send her daughter to public school because the little girl's beliefs were "too rigid." (emphasis mine):

The court order stated: "According to the guardian ad litem's further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith." The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared "visibly upset" when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.

The guardian also noted that Amanda's relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to "adopt her religious beliefs."

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda's "interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and...Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior."

Full Article

I suppose it didn't count in the homeschooling case that the girl attended public school anyway to learn Spanish, art, and take phys-ed classes. No. The point was to take her away from her mother's "rigid beliefs."

I recently commented on The Creative Minority Report's site about the craziness of these two cases. You can't have it both ways. The multi-culturalism crowd has rammed its agenda through our society, insisting that we acknowledge, and even experience to a certain point, other faiths. This is why we have kids in Virginia learning about Ramadan in a public school. (Wouldn't you love to see them do the same thing with Jesus and learning the Our Father prayer?)

But yet the judicial system wants to step in and say, "Oh, we believe in diversity. Just diversity about other faiths, except Christianity."

If I were Reyes' attorney, I'd argue from the standpoint that the daughter needs to be exposed to the different religious beliefs of her parents, even if they conflict with one another. Because if one parent insists that only their point of view is taught, that's not really fair. Both parents should have been able to compromise on this but unfortunately, the Jewish mother is the one being "rigid." Meanwhile, the father's right to raise his daughter according to his convictions is getting trampled. It is yet one more development in the government saying to parents, "I know better than you what the child needs."

The whole Joseph Reyes' scenario is crazy, and compared to what just happened in New Hampshire with the homeschooled girl - especially loony. If you have some legal precedents to send to Reye's lawyer, Joel A. Brodsky, here's his information. I sent to Mr. Brodsky the link to the New Hampshire case. Although I was saddened by the homeschooled girl being forced to attend public school, perhaps it could be used to help Joseph Reyes' retain the right to take his little girl to church with him. Keep them in your prayers.

Reminder: Ronald Reagan on Socialism and Healthcare

I originally heard this remix through the Glenn Beck radio program. It's very good and brings up some powerful points. Pass it on.

Mattel Fails With New American Girl 'Homeless' Doll

Mattel, that adorable toy company that brought us the Barbie Doll, has just released a horrendous addition to their "American Girls" lineup. Introducing little "Gwen," the homeless American Girl.

Already this new addition is making waves. Andrea Peyser, writer for the New York Post, had this to say (emphasis mine):

And while you were snoozing, the creators of American Girl, which is sold by Mattel, got bold. They engaged in all-out political indoctrination.

Snuck into the collection is a doll that comes with a biography that is weird and potentially offensive enough to keep Mom running to the Maalox. Gwen, you see, is harboring a terrible secret.

She is homeless. A homeless doll.

In the history books that come with every American Girl doll -- bringing to life these little monsters until impressionable little ones believe they are actual people -- you learn that Gwen's father walked out on the family. Her mother lost her job.

As the little kiddies learn to read about this doll as if she's a human being, one learns that, as fall turned into winter, Gwen's mom lost her grip.

Mother and daughter started bedding down in a car.

For $95 -- more than your average homeless person would dream of spending on a rather mediocre baby substitute -- Gwen Thompson can be yours. A mixed message if ever there was one.

Full Article

Mixed message, indeed. I just found out yesterday about this new addition to the popular "American Girls" doll collection. And I was stunned. What were they thinking? I remember when I first learned about the "American Dolls" years ago, and thought it was a wonderful idea. The company created a doll during important times in our country's history. First, there was a Swedish immigrant doll, one of the first introduced, in 1986. The doll, Kirsten Larson, described life in the United States during the mid-1800's. The dolls have their own stories reflecting what life was like during that time period. (And of course there are the expensive accessories that accompany each doll and its historical time frame.) The historical periods covered are The American Civil War, Edwardian (or Victorian), The Great Depression, and World War II.

All sounding fine and dandy, so far. But then Mattel had to start going political. Pleasant Rowland, who created the company in 1986, sold it to Mattel in 1998. It was after 1998 that we started to get the "politically-correct" dolls such as a Native American doll who lived before the white settlers arrived and a Mexican doll who lived in New Mexico before it was surrendered to the United States during the Mexican-American War in 1848. (Which wasn't United States "American" since the doll's characters either lived before our country was born or was part of another country before being joined to the United States.)

Then of course, there was the 60's and 70's era, which produced "Julie," who lived in San Francisco during 1974. Her story focuses on cheerful societal changes like divorce, gender equality in sports (Yes, really.), America's Bicentennial Celebration (nice they noticed), environmentalism, the disability rights movement, and feminism. Change your world, Julie!

Evidently, reflecting on our nation's history wasn't enough for Mattel. They turned their dolls into mini-activists, promoting "causes." And now we have The Homeless One.

After a lineage of dolls that represented young girls rising to the challenges of their own place in history, how does it make sense to introduce a doll that is victimized? How is such a story encouraging to a little girl? And the irony of charging $95 for a "homeless" doll (without accessories!) seems to be lost on Mattel.

Women have come a long way throughout history. I had hoped that even a toy company could accurately represent the growth and opportunities that have been afforded women over the last 200+ years. What angers me about this new offering is that it is not supportive, positive, or encouraging. A young girl, once she learns the story, will most likely feel fearful and insecure. Is that what we want for our little girls?

And that doesn't even cover the father aspect of this sad tale. According to "Gwen's" story, her father abandoned her and her mother. Big, bad men! Selfish! Immature! Mean! Oh, yes. That's the attitude I'd love to encourage in my little girl. Not.

And then there is the mother, who obviously has been destroyed by the situation. Of course, this is reality for many women, but do we really want to bring such harsh realities to an 8 year-old? Do we not try to protect our children from the injustices of the world until they're old enough to understand there are many complications to life?

It galls me that instead of focusing on a woman's resourcefulness and "toughness" (as shown by the earlier dolls), we have "The Victimized Woman," who can't seem to pull it together for her daughter. She goes to "Sunrise House," which helps the homeless, and says, "Without Sunrise House, I don't know where we'd be today." Hmmm. Wonder where Sunrise House gets its money? I can't find the info but if that's not a set-up for the Big, Loving Government to take care of us all, I don't know what is.

Bottom line: I think Mattel did a horrendous job of research and development for this concept. I think it's a bad idea all around, the worst I've seen yet for a toy. The American Girls doll collection started out so well, and was an admirable project to help young girls understand the history of our country. But they've gone off the rails on this one. They should be ashamed of themselves, for turning what is a very real and tragic problem, into a commodity.

If you're upset about it, I highly recommend going on Twitter and tweeting the heck out of it. Astonishingly, they only have two Twitter accounts: @MattelRecruiter and @mattelmba. I say "astonishing" because any major Fortune 100 company that doesn't have a presence on Twitter is ignorant of social media's effect for a brand. Nevertheless, let them know if you think it's a bad idea. I'm sure if this topic started to trend on Twitter's list, someone (I hope) will notice.

Officer Does Not Like Anti-Obama Poster: "It Ain't (America) No More."

This is an outrage.

I'm sorry to start off a lovely Saturday with such things as fascism, but there is no other word for what just happened this week at Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) Town Hall meeting, held at South Lakes High School in Reston, VA. I want this video to go viral. You have to watch and hear it, to believe it:



I'd like to point out something: School Security Officer, Wesley Cheeks, Jr., said something that stood out as the true reason this protester's sign was forbidden. It had an unflattering picture of President Barack Obama on it.

Now if this picture had been a flattering photo of Obama, or a positive sign in support of Obama-care with his photo on it, I have no doubt that Officer Cheeks, Jr. would not have made an issue of it.

Anymore, I feel as though I'm living in a surreal world. "Not America Anymore?" Since when? Since November when President Obama was elected? Or since more and more people are rising up to protest what is happening to their country and their non-support of this administration's policies?

How quickly they have forgotten. This is what our country had to deal with during the past eight years when President Bush was in office. (Warning: some of these photos are graphic and/or highly offensive. But somehow they were okay because it was Bush and he was obviously a war criminal, blah, blah, blah. Notice that all of these signs have photos of Bush in them.)

From the wonderfully, supportive A.N.S.W.E.R. site:














Ah. Bush being compared to Hitler. Funny how leftists are blind to what truly defines fascism, which is what we're now seeing in the Obama administration.
















The Loft accurately points out the hypocrisy. Vanity Fair portrayed President Bush as The Joker long before someone did it to Obama. The Village Voice and L.A. Weekly liked to portray President Bush as a blood-sucking vampire.







And remember the "assassination chic" that showed President Bush with a gun to his head? Gosh. Remember the outrage from the mainstream media? How they condemned such things? Oh, wait... (Mantilla Nod to the ever-brilliant Michelle Malkin. Bookmark her post: Crush the Obamedia Narrative: Look Who's 'Gripped By Insane Rage' images below are from that post.)















Nice stamps.


























Gosh. I wonder if any of these protesters were told they had to put their sign down?

















And finally, props have to be given to the unhinged Left. You taught us well. Now it's our turn. Deal with it.