Catholic View

Is Yoga satanic?

2011-12-02T02:52:00.001-08:00

Recently, an elderly priest in the Vatican who has done 70,000 exorcisms (so saith the news), came out with a comment where he supposedly condemned yoga as of Satan. Yoga, said 85 year old Fr Gabriel Amorth, "works with magic and leads to evil." And of course, some Catholics who have similar beliefs have quoted this priest - so have some news media, happy at the chance to make the church look bad.

Truth being, none of us have all the knowledge and all of us can be in error about something without making us bad people or even stupid people.

That is, Fr Amorth is likely a good priest but like the rest of us, has his biases. Chances are he's never done yoga and/or he may have observed some folks who were possessed or obsessed who happened to do yoga and he made a connection (for example had he asked, the possessed or obsessed person might have ridden a bicycle as a kid also, so he could have said "riding a bicycle leads to satanic influence").

Truly those type of errors are common and even made by our scientists as shown in the epidemiological studies which "proved" that giving birth control meds to menopausal women protected them from heart attack -- until 2 clinical studies found the opposite i.e. that birth control meds greatly raise the risk of not only heart attack, stroke and thrombosis but also significantly raise the risk of breast cancer. (One magazine pointed out two studies, one in the 1930's which gave synthetic estrogen to rats and all of them, male and female came down with breast cancer and yet, large organizations, today, ignore the connection completely).

As an aside, our wonderful news services, which are so quick to condemn the Catholic church have failed to report the dangers of even low dose birth control to the public with the result that last I checked, there were millions of women still taking birth control medication, both for family planning and for hormone replacement therapy!

Sticking with the Bible and the words of Jesus, is a good idea in the case of Yoga ! I am a devout Catholic who DOES yoga several times a week. I am also 67 years old and fit and yoga is part of my program. Yoga is a wonderful inheritance from the East and can be a healthy practice. We do not have to embrace other religious beliefs to learn their good health practices. And bottom line - the words of Jesus "other sheep have I who are not members of this flock" and "Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile." Mark 7:15

Postscript: Fr Amorth also said that the Harry Potter books can lead to evil. I tend to feel that, at best, those books are a horrible waste of time for kids who should be reading real literature like Tom Sawyer and Booth Tarkington. I read a couple of Harry Potter books and while having a total absence of God, they encourage magic, some of it, black magic which could only have originated in Satan and which really can likely not lead to anything positive. Luckily, most kids find these books boring - at least that was true of my grandkids. Perhaps the answer to Harry Potter is for parents and teachers to gently crowd them out by suggesting worthwhile literature for children. My emotional reaction to reading Harry Potter books was that they gave me a kind of creepy feeling.

No altar girls?

2011-08-28T16:06:00.000-07:00

Fr. John Lankeit, the rector of our Cathedral in Phoenix, has started a firestorm amongst the liberals when he announced that there would be no more "altar girls" serving in the Cathedral. Fr John gave his reasons to EWTN News:

"We don't discourage one or the other, but we honor them for what they are, both male and female."

"We live in a society where there is deliberate gender confusion. I want to make sure that we don't allow that to happen, especially in the Church."

Surely, this decision will incite cries of how the Catholic church is discriminating against women.

Even though, a woman has been elevated in the Catholic church to the highest position ever given a human being and that through doing something that God only allows a woman to do - be a mother. I am speaking, of course, of Our Blessed Mother, Mary.

I have always wondered how the church can be accused of discriminating against women when they have given womenhood such awesome dignity through Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

I have also wondered how women can view Our Lord, hanging on the cross, dying for our sins in a most horrible, embarrassing manner and tell Him that they only will serve Him if they can be a priest.

But I have not seen in any news articles, the bottom line and that is, that things in this universe, even such tiny things as snowflakes are not interchangeable! Each snowflake is different from every other snow flake. Indeed, the universe, scientists have found out, runs on a very tight set of rules.

Unlike other explosions, the so called "Big Bang" which is accepted by all modern scientists, atheists or not, resulted in extreme order (other explosions all have ended up in chaos!) and this order has very low "tolerances" i.e. one small change could cause the whole thing to blow up or implode!

And so in the order of the universe, men are priests and women are mothers. End of story.

I applaud Fr John's courageous decision and I hope others follow suit and do not allow themselves to be persuaded by the disorderly-ness of this society!

Priest Scandal - what is the truth here?

2011-08-07T14:05:00.000-07:00

There are two sides of the story of the so priest scandal but we only hear one side. The media emphasizes the cases (most of which happened years ago) of priests, statistically less than 1 percent of Catholic priests have been accused of this) ignoring that as high as 50% of abortionists may have also abused those who trusted them as well as the 20% of public school teachers and countless coaches also accused. Govt statistics tell us that most se/xual abuse happens in the home (75% percent of it) by step fathers and uncles etc.

Se/xual molestation is a definite problem in our society and will continue to be a problem if we only address the 1% of those priests thusly accused, closing our eyes to the overwhelming majority of abuse which has nothing to do with priests. (I also was se/xually molested, 4 times. By my violin teacher when I was 12 years old, by a guy my mother matched me up with when I was 19 who only didn't ra/pe me by the Grace of God and my own quick thinking, by a sports coach when I was in my 30's and by a doctor I had met socially who examined my sore leg in the swimming pool and proceeded to "cop a feel"!)

That being said, when this all came up, being a Roman Catholic myself, I was curious to do some investigating to see how bad things were or were not.

I first started with the town I live in, one of the 10 largest cities in the USA.

In my area, there are 5 priests accused over the past 30 years (this was before another one recently got accused - he quit the priesthood and the Catholic church, and started his own congregation before they could prosecute him). Ok, 2 of them were defrocked, 1 of them had fled to Ireland, 1 of them was dead and 1 was currently in prison. The Bishop had acted quickly on all the cases.

Conclusion, it was not true in my diocese that anything had been "covered up". On the contrary.

But what about the priest in Boston who started the firestorm? Curious about this, I researched him on the S.N.A.P. website. They have all the PDFs of the case there and SNAP is a group of victims who are very antiCatholic. I thought it was a good place to start the research - certainly no one can accuse them of covering anything up or being biased in favor of the Catholic church.

Where I expected to find something awful, I was actually quite surprised at what I uncovered on the SNAP site!

The priest in Boston had had complaints against him for a handful of boys but when the Cardinal went to investigate, he found that the priest was well liked in his parish and that even the parents of the kids who had complained, did not uphold the testimonies of their own kids! The cardinal's hands were tied. The priest, of course, lied through his teeth but the sad thing was, the people of his parish UPHELD HIM.

Ironically, the way the cardinal ended up discovering the truth, was that he was doing a "one on one" with all priests and when he got to this priest and had lunch with him, he realized immediately, that the priest was likely guilty! The Cardinal went home from that luncheon and started proceedings to defrock the priest! It should be noted that when he fired that priest from his parish, the people of the parish staged a major demonstration against the Cardinal! None of this made the news of course. :(

Quite different from the way the media or movies like "Our Fathers" portray it, isn't it?

Bottom line, He who started our church, Jesus, was crucified as a common criminal and He was perfect. Certainly our priests and cardinals and even strong Christians cannot expect otherwise.

That is, if Jesus rode to Heaven on a cross, should we expect to ride there in a plush lined Cadillac? Can we expect to be "popular" in a society which was capable of crucifying God incarnate?

And - please understand - the media does (as Stephen King put it) go for the "gross-out" even if it means um...bending the truth. Media information should not what anyone should be making decisions based on - it should carry a disclaimer of "for entertainment only - any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental!"

Society has it's Wires Crossed?

2011-07-28T13:12:00.000-07:00

Today's news carried a story about an abortionist who is being sued. In itself, that's not surprising but the details of the case are macabre to say the least.

First of all, the lady who is suing him and his partner is doing so because he botched her abortion and her daughter ended up living but with multiple disabilities.

The girl, now ten years old, suffers from a host of disabilities in connection with the attempted killing, including cerebral palsy, loss of function on the left side of her body, strokes, mental disability, chronic lung disease, and seizures.

So my first question is - is the mom suing him because she's sorry the kid lived? It seems like that. Dr Pendergraft who owns 5 abortion clinics and is in jail at present for extortion, was ordered to pay the mother 18 million bucks. So maybe it just is all about money but what is that young girl going to think of all of this? This is not a nice way to start off one's life and especially when one has other disabilities.

Secondly, at the hearing (which wasn't reported in any of the mainstream news sources like MSNBC but was reported in several pro life sources), the abortionist's assistant glibly says that "yes, babies are delivered in the toilet all the time and many times are still alive, wiggling around in the toilet."

One person pointed out and I'd like the answer myself to this... if this were about puppies, there would be a public outcry but this can be said about human beings and few even notice!

That is, it appears to me (and several others have noted this) that dogs have more rights and respect in our society than do human babies.

I am reminded of the passage in the Bible which says that in the latter days, "the level of sin will be so high that the hearts of many will grow cold." When we no longer care about small humans alive and drowning in a toilet, sounds like we are pretty well there.

Holy Father in Croatia - Warns about co-habitation

2011-06-06T16:06:00.000-07:00

Don't give in to the secular mentality which views living together as a preparation for marriage, warned Pope Benedict XVI in a homily to Croatians, half a million of them who were gathered for his Mass. The Holy Father added that living together was also not a substitute for marriage. He affirmed the need to respect life from pre-born to natural death and further stated:

"Dear parents, commit yourselves always to teach your children to pray, and pray with them; draw them close to the Sacraments, especially to the Eucharist..."

Materialism is being advocated as the source of happiness, obscuring deeper human values, continued the Pope, and love has been reduced to a combination of sentimentality and "to the gratification of instinctive impulses" without commitment. Christians are called to make the commitment of marriage and deeper values and to teach this to their children and to be always open to life.

The family is a small "domestic church", said Benedict XVI.

I guess Europe has issues similar to the USA - I hope Catholics do take the Holy Father's words seriously - to stand up for the truth especially with one's family, is difficult but then, the easy way out is never the best way.

It's like Bishop Sheen said "sin is a moment of pleasure and a lifetime of pain and virtue is a moment of pain and a lifetime of joy"

Camping, the Rapture and the Atheists

2011-05-24T04:15:00.000-07:00

On one side, we have Rev Camping who is predicting the rapture as happening some time this year (he's had to revise his prediction since May 22 2011 came and went and no Christians were raptured that we know about, much to the amusement of the secular media). For those unfamiliar with the Rapture doctrine, this teaches that before things get really bad on the earth, God will scoop up the Christians into Heaven (without them dying first)! Pictures of the rapture depict people being raised up into the air. This is basically a misinterpretation of the book of Revelations and also a misinterpretation of something Jesus said which when read in context means something totally different. But it's certainly a pleasant idea as an easy exit out of a troubled and increasingly violent society and Americans especially like easy.

On the other side there are the agnostics, the atheists and even other Christians who are more conservative, who have found Rev Camping's predictions to be the greatest source of mirth since the "dead baby jokes" became passe'.

In my opinion, they both could be said to be 'barking up the wrong tree'. For the atheists etc, they might take into consideration that Christianity has been around for a long time and still is growing in numbers despite their best efforts to abort this. And as this article points out, atheists and agnostics often don't tend to "believe in nothing" but rather, they have been known to embrace occult beliefs and other superstitions which have been long discarded by Christians. As Chesterton pointed out "When man ceases believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing but rather will believe anything!"

Does that mean the Christians who believe in the rapture, are closer to the truth then at least about the future? Not exactly. The idea of escaping the suffering and embracing the cross have been lost from the rapture doctrine which while pleasant to believe, does not seem to be following what Jesus told us to do and that is to quite literally, "Take up your cross and follow Me"

Those of us who follow Jesus were never promised a Rose Garden or an easy escape either. We were rather promised a cross which if we embrace it, would help carry on our Lord's work as well as helping us to become closer to the Divine, so that when we die and enter Heaven, Jesus will say "Well done good and faithful servant!"

God hits the mainstream media during the Royal Wedding!

2011-04-29T04:38:00.000-07:00

I am watching the wedding of William and Kate which has a church service looking very Catholic, splashed across the secular media (and to be encored several times today - i.e. on TLC)! And in Times Square, there are thousands of folks watching the live broadcast ---- a CHURCH service preaching about --- GOD on a media which is trying so hard to delete God!!!! God is not only kind and merciful - He is downright CUTE!!!

Imagine as ONE THIRD OF THE WORLD WATCHED, on secular TV and in usually God-less NY Times Square, the following religious speech delivered by the ArchBishop of London!

"As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding increase in expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This is to load our partner with too great a burden. We all are incomplete, we all need the Love which is secure rather than oppressive. We need mutual forgiveness in order to thrive. But as we move towards our partner in love, following the example of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is quickened within us. And can increasingly fill our lives with light. This leads on to a family life which offers the best conditions in which the next generation can receive and exchange those gifts which can overcome fear and division and incubate the coming world of the Spirit whose fruits are love and joy and peace. I pray that all of us present and the many millions watching and sharing in this ceremony and in your joy today, will do everything in our power to support and uphold you in your new life. And I pray that God will bless you in the way of life that you have chosen. That way which is expressed in the prayer that you have composed together in preparation for this day. "God our Father, we thank You for our families, for the love that we share, and for the joy of our marriage. In the busy-ness of each day, keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love, and energy. Strengthened by our union, help us to love and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ!" And we all say 'AMEN'!"

The bride is wearing a modest wedding dress by the way, not one of those strapless things brides seem to favor today! The music is beautiful and very sacred!

And the atheists really think they can keep God off the networks? NOT! I love it!!!! Yay God!!!

Baby Joseph - state murder or not?

2011-02-23T04:55:00.000-08:00

Baby Joseph is a 13 month old baby who is on life support and in a vegetative state (the five main areas of his brain have been damaged by a severe degenerative neurological condition). In the hospital, his parents want to take him home to die "in their arms" but the state has issued a court order to pull out the respirator and "let nature take its course" and the pro life movement is going ballistic, comparing the case to the regrettable murder of Terry Schiavo.

However, it's not the same. Schiavo was severely handicapped but from neurologists who examined her case history and even from films on the website, not in a persistent vegetative state - she was non verbal but teased her doctor and followed with her eyes and smiled at her parents. A neurologist in Florida opined that she could have been rehabbed and he had in fact, rehabbed several cases with similar CT scan results. And Schiavo was an adult whose rights should not have been turned over to her divorced estranged husband. She breathed on her own and they enforced her starving to death by pulling her feeding tube and stationing 5 police officers on guard around the bed to prevent family from feeding her by mouth (she could eat soft foods by mouth and of course, could take liquids). That was first degree murder and sadly the whole country stood by and watched.

Baby Joseph needs a trach to be allowed to leave the hospital. The doctors say that they know a lot more about trachs and that he could die on the table and secondly, probably wonder if his parents want to see him bleeding from the trach, his insides ripping up and suctioning the trach tube every 2 hours etc. So in this case, there might be a medical reason to withdraw the respirator.

However, the pro life movement is comparing it to Schiavo and there is really no resemblance. Terry was not dying and could have been rehabbed. Baby Joseph is dying. Terry was not really vegetative but rather non verbal and severely handicapped. But Baby Joseph is vegetative.

Here are a couple of comments which were very relevant on one of the news sites:

From Doug in Canada:
It's hard not to get choked up reading about kids like this.It hits everyone hard.This is the sad part of life.But it is life in the real world. Lord knows if this was my child,I would likely be hanging on to the very last breath too. But here's the thing.First,the father wants the child to die a "natural" death.In truth,isn't it already to late for that? Were it not for medical intervention,he would probably not have survived this long.Prolonging the suffering of this child is not something they are doing for the child,the parents are doing that for themselves. Saying good-bye to your child is the worst of all horrors, and one that no one wants to face.But there are times when you have to let go.If this child cannot recover from this,the sooner the parents face that reality,the better it will be for everyone. Every life counts.But prolonging the suffering of someone incurable,is just plain cruel.And not only that,the resources that the health care system spends trying to prolong a life that seems lost already,could be far better used to save a child who can be saved. Logic and reason aside,my heart goes out to all those involved.I readily concede that it's easier to use logic and reason when you're far removed from the family,and the pain they must be in.It's not easy to use logic and reason when the issue is about your family.While I don't think prolonging this child's suffering is the right thing to do,I can't criticize this family unless I walk in their shoes.

From Rick in SJ
Playing God?? Oh you guys are having it backwards. ... It is because of medicine and modern science that this child is as old as he is now. For them to pull the plug is not playing God, for when the plug IS pulled...isn't it "the will of God" that will take him from them? If he wanted the child to live, he would have him breathing on his own and etc.You are thinking this backwards. I almost lost a son too when he was 2 months of age and had the doctors told me that he wouldn't have lived, and given the objective information (no reflexes, full vegetative state) I would have done what they asked...they are PROFESSIONALS who deal with life and death every day...there isn't emotion attached to this.

Bottom line, perhaps we should pick our battles more carefully. While this is a sad case, it may not be the one to make a media event to prove a point which may not even be relevant to the pro life cause.

Breaking news: Baby Joseph may be moved to a Detroit hospital, sources now say.

Can lying for a good purpose be justified? Hard choices

2011-02-18T02:37:00.000-08:00

Lately the question has been raised among theologians whether it was moral for Lila Rose to go into Planned Parenthood clinics, posing as a under-aged "lady of the night" working for her p/imp in order to video employees of Planned Parenthood, supporting this type of lifestyle with birth control and abortion.

Sadly whereas the murder of millions of babies hardly raises an eyebrow anymore, the exploitation of children for se/xual purposes is considered intrinsically wrong in all circles, pro choice as well as pro life. And so Lila Rose's videos have raised public awareness of the possibility of Planned Parenthood not being a 'good for society' group. (Abby Johnson's book, UNPLANNED also has raised a lot of awareness).

However, that some good might come from LiveAction's campaign, only confirms that God can work good out of anything but does not in itself, argue for the morality of the idea of -what some are calling - "lying for Jesus".

Mark Shea brings out in his excellent blogs, "Dawn Eden is right..." and "Last Comment about Lying for Jesus" that the Catholic Catechism states that lying is always "intrinsically evil", among many other excellent points.

The American Catholic had an article by Joe Hargrave entitled "My Problem with Lila Rose" which is worth reading. He questions whether the entrapment of a couple of Planned Parenthood employees agreeing with potential customers is really proof of Planned Parenthood supporting exploitation of children.

The questions raised by these articles have been mine from the beginning. St Ignatius Loyola in his "Spiritual Exercises" states that no ends, regardless of how meritorious, justify immoral means.

Would God really require us to be immoral, even for a "good purpose"? I would say, "NO". And the fact that those videos are of questionable morality for Christians, puts the pro life movement in a shaky position. It is true, for example, that the demise of George Tiller meant a lot less full term or almost full term babies murdered but does anyone sanction that? Murder is prohibited in the Ten Commandments but so is lying. Sticking to our Christian morality sometimes presents us with very hard choices but as believers, we have to believe that Christian morality will always work out the best, regardless of less moral methodology seeming to be appropriate at times.

For example, is the classic "white lie" really appropriate...that is, is it right for husband to answer his somewhat chubby wife's question about her looking fat in a certain outfit with a lie? Or is there another way? For example, would it not be better, rather than lying about something she can see about herself, to say as my husband said when I was clinically obese - "You always look good to me regardless of what size you are!" Which ended up making me feel a lot better than a lie would have done. (Now that I am no longer clinically obese, he STILL says in answer to my comment about looking fat in a photo, with "You look good to me, now as you did, THEN!".

No one is judging any individuals here. The Mercy of God always is at work and none of us are totally right, no matter how hard we try to be. But I think Christians and pro lifers would hold a stronger position simply in combating evil with truth.

For example, I found it very effective to stand outside of a High school and hand out "informed consent" booklets about abortion. Students seeing medical information would ask "are you for or against abortion?" And evading the question (this is called "reservation" and not a sin), I would say "I am just providing the medical information to help folks make the decision which would work the best for them." Most of them took my informed consent information which in itself, will talk many out of choosing abortion. I have literally stopped ladies from going into Planned Parenthood by asking them "Did you know that abortion greatly raises the risk for breast cancer?" (this is supported in 38 worldwide studies including the clinical studies of pro choice scientist, Janet Daling).

I think ... no, rather, I feel confident, we can stop the murder of millions of babies by simply providing the public with the medical truth about the abortion procedure without wandering into morally questionable areas.

Pro life article in the NY times?

2011-01-05T10:38:00.000-08:00

I knew that would get your attention. Well, I was rather shocked that the Times, the bastion of pro abortion views in the city where several times more babies are aborted than born, would print something which gives a more balanced view on abortion but it has happened. It's in a blog by Ross Douthat, not a mainstream article, but still, blogs do get crawled. As a person working in the diocese of Phoenix wrote "Maybe the truth keeps knocking until we are embarrassed not to answer!"

The blog talks about the new show on MTV about women facing decisions which seem (according to MTV anyway) best solved by abortion. I didn't watch the show because I knew right up front, it would totally annoy me.

Blogger ROSS DOUTHAT said although the view of MTV was, pro choice, the first show turned out to be "a heartbreaking spectacle, whatever your perspective."

He talks about shortage of babies available for adoption, partially because only a small percentage of single mothers are not keeping their babies. But Ross does add that "Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead."

Another thing, Ross brought up about the show was the euphemistic de-humanizing way the abortion industry talks about the baby. Expressions like "fetus" or "baby" are carefully avoided and the baby is referred to as "the pregnancy problem" which is just a "ball of cells".

However, apparently the pregnant woman on the show has realized it is a baby because she begins crying when her boyfriend calls her baby a "thing".

Sadly, she went ahead with the abortion because like many other women, she didn't see a way out. However, life is always the best way out and unfortunately, we often find out all too late that nothing is solved by the termination of a life - that only adds to the difficulty of a situation. One only has to listen to a small sampling of the thousands of women in the Silent no more awareness campaign to realize that abortion causes many more heartaches than going through with a pregnancy.

I did like Ross's conclusion though. It was:

"This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

Imagine that in a blog of the New York Times. As the old saying goes, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". That is, this is not a bad way to start a new year, in which we hopefully will progress toward ending the mass execution of the unborn.

Details on the Bishop's decision about St Josephs Hospital

2011-01-02T04:59:00.000-08:00

This video is the best I've seen for details - it should answer any questions:

News Conference at the Diocesan Pastoral Center, Dec. 21, 2010 from Diocese of Phoenix on Vimeo.

The Diocese of Phoenix held a news conference today announcing that St. Joseph's Hospital can no longer identify itself as Catholic.

The Bishop and the Hospital

2011-01-01T02:02:00.000-08:00

In a controversial decision (at least according to the news services), Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted revoked his consent for St. Joseph’s Hospital to use the name Catholic because he cannot verify that the hospital will provide authentically Catholic health care in accord with the teachings of the Church.

Bishop launched a website to explain why.

His reasons are as follows:

St. Joseph’s Hospital’s sanctioning and performing a direct abortion in late 2009,

St. Joseph’s admitting to being in formal cooperation in abortions, sterilizations and contraceptive services administered through their Mercy Care Plan — a $2 billion endeavor covering about 368,000 of Arizona’s poor.

Let's talk about the first one because the second reason is a no brainer. NOTE: The Bishop never said that St Joseph's was not a good hospital or that you will not get good health care there. He merely wants to warn Catholics that it's no longer a Catholic hospital i.e. St Joseph's is not delivering care according to Catholic church teachings on life issues!

The concern of the doctors was not an immediate emergency with the lady with pulmonary hypertension (for whom the Sister approved an abortion) but rather that in a number of cases with this disorder, during childbirth, women have been observed going into respiratory shock leading to death a few days after delivery.

In other words, there was no medical emergency with the pregnancy but in the case of a high risk pregnancy, doctors will always suggest aborting the baby.

This is effectually saying that the mother's life is worth more than the baby's life. But the Catholic church disagrees. We do not rate one life as worth more than another, and we cannot sanction willful murder of one life to make life "less risky" for another human.

The bottom line may come from the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises which remind us that no immoral means justify any ends, even the best of ends.

As my Jesuit Spiritual advisor, Fr John Becker, would say in answer to ANY arguments in favor of abortion, "But it’s murder!"

It is interesting to note that when St Gianna Molla, a pediatrician was pregnant and developed a tumor, she was given the same advice by her doctors that the lady with pulmonary hypertension was given, to abort the child.

St Gianna told them whatever the case, save the baby. St Gianna developed septicemia after her delivery of a little girl (who is now, like her mother, a physician) and died about two weeks after delivery.

And now the church honors her AS St Gianna, a model for all of us. Her daughter whose life was saved by her mother's decision, was present when her mother was canonized by John Paul II.

Truly, as a mother, I would not want to buy my life with the life of my baby. If God wants me or the baby (or both) to live, He will allow it. If not, we, as Catholics do believe that His Divine Providence is a perfect plan.

That is why the Bishop decided what he did and I applaud his decision. He is courageous and standing up for Our Lord and what our church teaches.

Gender - is it really in the genes?

2010-10-25T04:44:00.000-07:00

A recent "Mystery Diagnosis" program which featured a woman who did not mature, female-wise, throws some doubts on the idea of gender being in the genes as is often claimed by trans-gendered folks. A doctor consulted on her lack of female development, recommended surgery, saying her ovaries were non functional and had a high risk of being a factor in cancer later on. She was quickly taken into the hospital and the offending ovaries were removed or at least that's what she was told.

Before her surgery, she had developed looking more male than female with the exception of the bodily hair which she did not have. After surgery, she was given large amounts of estrogen and told she would have to stay on this for life but, as an adult, unsatisfied with the diagnosis, she began to dig and finally asked for her hospital records (which they gave her a hard time about releasing, first claiming she had never had surgery there). When a doctor in California examined her records, he found that she had been lied to. She had never had her ovaries removed because she never developed ovaries. Apparently, her "gonads" were non functional... the gonads secrete what is needed to either develop ovaries and a feminine shape or not. They had removed the gonads (the part about them being a prevalent spot for cancer was true). They probably had not told her because of the fear of throwing her in a position of considering "gender reassignment" but apparently, the reason she had not developed ovaries was because she, unlike females, had a "Y" chromosome!

What was surprising is despite being physically somewhat "masculine", she, after finding out she had a "Y" chromosome did NOT seek gender reassignment. She was attracted to men and found a mate who was crazy about her - they adopted 2 kids and have been married at least 18 years (the oldest kid is 18 and was adopted as a very young kid).

The interesting thing is she's totally happy as a woman and if gender reassignment would be understandable in anyone, it would be someone who is genetically, basically a man and yet, apparently this woman on the show had never even considered that - it seems totally off her radar screen.

One study, touted as the largest study on the issue, stated that one gene had been found which was a bit "longer" in females than males and "might cause" "feminisation" of the brain. This study was only of 112 male to female gender reassignment cases however, and is far from conclusively proving that there is anything genetically involved.

The Discovery Health "Mystery Diagnosis" case throws serious doubt into the need for "gender reassignment" in anyone - something, even knowing several "gender reassigned" folks, I have wondered about for years. None of the "gender reassigned" people I've known were really, truly the gender they claimed to be and in more closely interviewing several of them, it seemed the problem was more "inferiority complex" or bad memories from the past (one gender reassigned male to female had been an officer in Vietnam, ordered to blow up entire villages) or simply feeling that they more "belonged" to the female (or male) gender due to their interests, for example like one artist I knew or their sensitivity. For one transgendered male to female, I matched all her stories of childhood female likes with my boy likes - I was a tom boy, loving guns, using dolls to merely to be hostages in boy games and even not particularly desiring to be female when I grew up. I have to date, always hated make up (feels yucky on the skin so I have never worn it) and dresses (hamper movement and are not as comfortable as pants). I wear my hair very short and find that much more convenient than the alternative. And yet, I loved being a mother and love being a grandmother and am very attracted to males, particularly my good looking husband of 44 years duration.

So often we are basing gender on their likes (like boy toys or girl toys etc) and clothing or makeup or long hair, rather than deeper things, forgetting that in other societies it may be the men who wear dresses or makeup. It may be that gender is much deeper than even what we are genetically, like possibly, in the so called "soul" or "spirit".

If God wanted us to use artificial birth control ....

2010-10-22T03:39:00.000-07:00

I keep wondering this - if God wanted us to use artificial birth control, why hasn't He helped us invent something which is both safe and effective? The family planning method which is safe and effective is "periodic abstinence" or "Billings Ovulation". And ironically, this is the method the Catholic Church recommends. You only have to abstain 5-7 days a month and the rest of the time, have a good time whenever you want. So why are 85% of Catholic Women using artificial birth control?

Natural Family Planning is one of the best kept secrets perhaps because no one makes a buck from it.

With the latest news of the study which found a significantly higher risk of both lung cancer and breast cancer in women taking pharmaceutical estrogen and progestin, perhaps Catholic women will have a change of heart.

I have personally observed young women on this medication to have severely crippling strokes and another friend on the medication who developed uterine cancer - she ended up dying in her early 60's with pancreatic cancer.

The Health Read News blog tells about the latest risks found in low dose birth control.

Book Review - Not Like Me by Eric Michael Bryant

2010-10-11T16:12:00.000-07:00

Note: a copy of this book was provided me free of charge by the publisher for reviewing purposes.

Eric Michael Bryant, author of "NOT LIKE ME", is a young guy who introduces himself by way of stating that he's white and bald but lives in a part of town where most of his neighbors are either African American or Hispanic. And he's also a youth minister. Pretty soon in the book one discovers his passions - for conversion and for reaching out to groups of people he feels Christians often ignore. And while this is certainly commendable, i.e. We should not require our friends to have to agree with us in order for us to love them, it isn't necessarily what Jesus had in mind when He told us we should love unconditionally. Conversion as the result of reaching out to others, is a condition.

That being said, the book offers some good suggestions including, befriending folks who are different, bringing over treats for new neighbors and inviting new people to outings, probably things we all knew about but still, a reminder every so often is good.

Where the book runs into problems is toward the end where Bryant extends his search for diversity among the attendees of a church, in a bit questionable direction.

He describes a dark woman as attending a church where she was pleased to find a warm friendly reception, until they discovered that she is an abortionist. Suddenly church members' attitudes toward her cooled as they attempted to share with her why abortion is so wrong. Needless to say, she left the church rather than abandoning her lucrative profession. Eric Bryant appears to disagree with the attitude of the members toward abortion and maintains that had the church looked past her gruesome field of work and tolerated her totally, she might have converted.

I disagree here. While we are asked to love the sinner, not telling her about such a serious sin would have not taken her spiritual welfare into consideration. The Catholic Church calls "admonishing the sinner", a spiritual act of mercy. Thus the folks in the church who let the abortionist know how the church and God looks at abortion, did her a greater kindness than those who would have remained silent.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Edmund Burke:

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to keep silent!"

Bryant's conclusion about abortion was that people shouldn't complain about it but rather adopt an unwanted child. Adoption is a good idea but I cannot see how this will end abortion. It sounds good though and more importantly, allows those who are "pro choice" to be comfortable (and possibly attend his church, bringing their bucks along?). I feel it's very wrong for a Christian to be any kind of tolerant toward something as intrinsically evil as abortion.

Bryant took a similar non-position on immigration - he pointed out that we had imported thousands of these people to labor for us (for very low wages) thus boosting our economy (true) but then also stated that "thousands of immigrants" had stolen Americans identities in order to work here. I've heard this accusation from the media but find it hard to believe that the rather un-techy immigrants from Mexico would bother stealing an identity in order to do manual labor for low pay. Bryant left the reader questioning just what his position on immigration was.

A chapter entitled "the Mosque next door" held promise of perhaps counteracting the anti Muslim sentiment prevalent now, however I found that whereas Eric Bryant seemed tolerant of "alternate lifestyles" and s/s marriage, and even tolerant of abortion, he seemed less willing to respect other spiritual paths like that of the Muslims. Ironic was that Muslims who enjoyed his young ministry events, were likely as intent on converting him as he was intent on making them Christians!

Bryant got in his complaints about liturgy also, toward the end of "Not Like Me". He writes,

"religion does not work because religion is humanity's attempt to earn God's favor" (page 224)

And

"Jesus message was very different. He taught that the practice of "religion" cannot be the answer." (page 222)

He also points out that he feels that,

"We cannot do enough good to come to God on our own merits" (ibid)

He is of forgetting the following rather clear part of the Bible:

James 2:18ff "Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works."

This is a common omission on the part of many believers in the "Salvation by Faith alone" theory.

My issues withstanding, I did find "Not Like Me" to be well written and organized in a unique manner. Bryant often uses his own experiences and family anecdotes to illustrate his points which I found charming. At the end of every chapter, he includes comments from other Christian writers which bring a different prospective to the chapter's discussion.

That is, if you don't mind the contradictions and theological errors, you might find "Not Like Me" an interesting read.

About the author:

Eric Bryant serves as an elder, speaker and navigator with the leadership team at Mosaic (www.mosaic.org) in Los Angeles, a church known for its creativity and diversity. He is part of the core teams for the Mosaic Alliance (www.mosaicalliance.com) and The Origins Project (www.originsproject.org). Bryant completed his Doctorate of Ministry in Entrepreneurial Leadership with Bethel Seminary. He lives with his wife, Debbie, and two children, Caleb and Trevi, in the middle of Los Angeles County.

You can find Eric and share your break through ideas at www.ericbryant.org.

New Morning After pill is risky and the media is not telling people!

2010-09-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

Ella is a dangerous medication - it was approved by the FDA for a "morning after pill" (meaning if conception took place, the baby will be aborted). It's supposed to be "good" for 5 days but because of its half life, it can actually stay in your system for 14 days or more. It blocks progesterone in stopping the production of it as well as blocking progesterone receptors which is supposed to cause a miscarriage. But it isn't effective sometimes. With every million doses of Ella given, 20,000 babies will survive the treatment and be born probably with serious disabilities.

Blocking progesterone can also cause many repercussions especially that the medication stays in your body for so long.

These are repercussions from the short pharmaceutical studies (at least those they are telling us about). We have no idea what other repercussions this medication might have which will come up in the aftermarket research.

Ella was rushed through FDA approval, circumventing the usual net of safety required for new medications.

There is a press silence about the dangers of Ella which works similarly to the RU 486 and so people will be taking the medication without knowing the danger they may face.

The following blog is by a scientist, a microbiologist, Dr Gerald Nadal and it gives more details - please take the time to read it because knowing this may not only save a baby's life but perhaps that of the mother of that baby.

Ella - untangling the ball of lies

Catholic Bishops back Bishop Olmsted's statement

2010-06-26T02:50:00.000-07:00

In Phoenix, Arizona, in November 2009, a Catholic Sister named Sr. Margaret Mary McBride approved an abortion for a patient in St Joseph's Hospital. The woman has pulmonary hypertension, a potentially fatal illness and she was in the hospital to treat her illness. Apparently when the doctors found out she was pregnant, they, in feeling the pregnancy posed greater risks for the woman, suggested an elective abortion and the Catholic Sister approved this decision.

Unfortunately, in her approval of an elective abortion, Sr M. M. ended up with an "automatic excommunication" which is a bit of a sticky situation for a Catholic nun to be faced with (to put it mildly).

The hospital defended her decision and the news services found the story a new way to attack the Catholic church for their stand on abortion. So 8 months after the fact, the story, first leaked by the AZ Republic was splattered all over the news.

Reporters interviewed Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix. Was the Sister really excommunicated, they asked. The Bishop confirmed the automatic excommunication for participation in an "intrinsic evil" act. And of course, that made the Bishop the target for more attacks.

I wrote a blog on this for the AZCentral news site and was told by one of the commenters that "all Catholics know that the stands of the Catholic church are outdated..." Huh? Since when is a prohibition of a particularly gross type of murder, outdated?

Anyway, turns out the Catholic Bishops Committee, supports Bishop Olmsted and they recently released a statement which explains things rather clearly. According to Catholic News Services:

A June 23 statement from the USCCB Committee on Doctrine addresses the Arizona controversy, and calls upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers to explain the issue at hand. “The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures” clarifies Church teaching, and applies it succinctly to the Arizona case.

Church teaching, said the statement, holds that direct abortion is never permissible. Direct abortion is an act whose primary intent is to terminate a pregnancy and kill an unborn child. However, medical procedures which have other primary intentions, and which indirectly end the life of the unborn child, are not considered to be direct abortions nor immoral.

“The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb,” says the statement. “In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman.”

“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus.”

The first scenario is an example of a direct abortion, because the surgery directly targets the life of the child. The procedure only affects the function of the woman’s organs, and thus her health, in an indirect way, explained the document. “As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”

In the second scenario, the surgery “indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child.” However, it “directly addresses the health problem of the woman” and her “health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ.”

In that scenario, “the surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child,” explains the statement. “The death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery.”

Seems clear enough to me. As the Bishops stated, I hope this clears the confusion of the public about this incident.

book Review: O ME OF LITTLE FAITH by Jason Boyett

2010-05-17T07:55:00.000-07:00

NOTE: A copy of this book was provided me free of charge by the publisher for review purposes.

Fr Benedict Groeschel, CFR, said on one of his shows:

"Everytime I get annoyed with God, I pick up a crucifix and remember that Jesus went through it all before us."

Fr Groeschel, a priest psychologist, after writing several books, made it through a coronary bypass in his early 70's and then, in his late 70's got into a horrible car accident which left him in a coma for several weeks. He came out of that also but not without a lot of injury. He is disabled to the point of needing assistance for all daily tasks which must have been a bitter pill for him to swallow. And if that were not enough, he recently had a couple of strokes, one of which partially took away his ability to speak.

Let's face it, we all ask those questions like "What was God thinking of?" or "Why is this a part of God's Plan?" And "How can God's Plan be perfect when it seems to allow terminal illness in children, famine and starvation in the world and more?"

Jason Boyett, author of "O Me of Little Faith", who describes himself on Facebook, as a Dad, a husband, a writer, a musician and speaker and a grown man who still likes cookies and milk, is not a theologian or pastor. His bio mentions that he has written several other books and has been featured on the National Geographics and History Channel. And that he lives in Texas with his wife and two kids.

He made his commitment to the Lord when he was 10 years old in a fundamentalist church, but found he had a lot of questions and also found that those around him who may have had similar questions and doubts about God, were afraid to voice these, as many seem to feel that faith and doubt cannot co-exist.

He leads us through HIS doubts which I think all of us can relate to, and ends with an inspiring last chapter which details how he solves this dilemma.

The honesty in "O Me of Little Faith" is refreshing. Jason rips through the pretensions of some who claim constant communication with God but not in a uncharitable manner. Just that this did not work for him. Perhaps they are in constant communication with God, he writes but that's not where he's at.

Jason writes that to believe in God is more of a leap of faith than to simply say there is no God but because it's the path of least resistance doesn't make it the right way to go. (P 54) Actually in studying the order of the universe, cosmological constants and latest "Big Bang" Theories, for me it's more of a leap of faith to not believe in God but many feel that the famous Occam's Razer would solve that question as saying God does not exist.

He also wonders why do we have to ask God for things we want when God already knows.I confess I used to feel that way also but in my later years, I have been asking God for things I need. If nothing else, it feels good to make pleas of God and Jesus did point out that the pesky asker - the squeaky wheel is the one who gets God's attention. He asks if any parent would deny their children and if not how much more does God love us? I feel that God does answer every prayer though sometimes, much to our frustration, the answer is "No".

As Mother Angelica of EWTN has said:

"God opens a door for us and we must walk through in total faith and then wait for God to open the next door."

Jason concludes that the ideal way of praying is the prayer of the church i.e. the Divine Office (praying the psalms). I must agree with him here.

"O Me of Little Faith" is not a fast reading book but it is very worth reading and will, I feel, give anyone who endures, a stronger faith. It's not that faith excludes doubt but that doubt is a part of faith, Boyett concludes. There, I agree also and feel that if people do not acknowledge their doubts, it actually can weaken their faith.

Catholics will like Jason's admonishment that the sinner's prayer is only the beginning of faith - he quotes James 2 "Show me your faith without works and I will show you the faith which underlies my works."

Although Jason Boyett describes himself as an agnostic, I had a feeling throughout the book that he is really a very strong believer.

I would really recommend this book! I enjoyed it very much!

Here's where you get it:

Amazon

Jason Boyett has a website and a blog.

Review: Present Perfect by Gregory A. Boyd

2010-05-04T14:40:00.000-07:00

NOTE: a copy of this book was provided to me by the publisher for review purposes.

This book by Dr Greg A. Boyd, Pastor of an Evangelical church in Minnesota, promises to help the reader experience "true spiritual formation" by "inviting God's Presence" in one's life.

And yet the author openly admits that he hasn't really experienced this transformation:

"Brother Lawrence, Frank Laubach and Jean de Caussade each speak of experiencing a transformation after which “practicing the presence of God” was as natural to them as breathing. I thought I was getting close to this sort of breakthrough last year when I was writing a book on this discipline (called Present Perfect) but I now suspect this was simply because my mind tends to be totally occupied with whatever I happen to be writing about at the time. This year I’m back to being pretty much the same old atheistic-minded Greg."

Although Greg attended a Catholic church for several years, it was because of his stepmother whom he describes as abusive, and when she left, he and his father both became atheists. The following is from an interview with Greg:

"My mom died before I was 3. My father remarried rather quickly, mostly out of a desperate need for someone to care for his four kids. If there are marriages made in heaven, this one was made in the other place. There was almost non-stop warfare in my home growing up. On top of this, my stepmother was physically abusive. The day my parents divorced and the family split up when I was 13 was quite honestly one of my happiest memories I have growing up. Though we had been attending a Catholic church up to this point, as soon as my stepmother and her two kids moved out, my father and I declared ourselves to be atheists."

After being atheist for 4 years and getting into drugs, Greg said he found the Lord.

He went to school for theology and has an impressive set of credentials including a M.Div from Yale Divinity School and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr Greg has also published 18 books and is a speaker on the international scene.

About 20 years ago, Greg encountered the writings of Catholic monk, Brother Lawrence, "THE PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD". He also read a couple of other authors on similar subjects: Jean Pierre de Caussade who was apparently a contemporary of Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach.

Greg was intrigued and began to find a way to put what he had read about, into practice. And "Present Perfect" details his own way of striving to be aware of God in his own life.

One charming thing about "Present Perfect" is that Greg is very honest about his own struggles. In one place he writes:

"I often feel as if I'm on a train that's constantly picking up speed as it races toward a brick wall. I have no idea when I'll crash, but I know I won't survive. Each passing moment takes me closer to this inevitability at an ever increasing speed. I'm dying." (P 63)

But then adds that

"The fear is not just that we're going to die. The fear is that we'll never really live." P 64

Quite a bit into this book, I realized that Greg's beliefs are very earth centered. He did state that he believes what Catholics call "Heaven" will be here on earth. I wondered how he dealt with the words of Jesus about His Kingdom being "not of this world".

My sense is that Greg with his struggles in being aware of God, may be speaking from an agnostic point of view. (He quipped to CNN that when one "Googles" his name, the word "heretic" comes up quite often!)

That being said, there is much merit in a person who has not received the "gift of faith", in working so diligently to approach God.

One of many intriguing things about "Present Perfect" is that it offers many practical ways of becoming more aware of God's presence that all of us can use in our own lives. These methods use both psychological tools like what Weight Watchers refer to as "anchors" (innocuous gestures or items which remind of what we want to be reminded of) and "positive self talk" or "affirmations" and, imagery.

Although Catholic spirituality should center around powerful channels of grace like the Holy Mass, the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy as well as ejaculatory prayer as Robert Spitzer, S.J. suggests - short prayers like "God help me" and "Holy Spirit, push away the darkness", we still can benefit a lot by supplementing these with many of Pastor Greg's suggestions in "Present Perfect".

Pastor Greg tells us to not be bothered by something we did for God imperfectly advising us to just "let it go". However, I find it the best for me in such situations to pray "God, please fix it!" Pastor Greg does offer an interesting method of letting things go, using an anchor (I won't tell you about it - you'll need to read the book, but I'm planning to try it myself!). :)

I could relate to a lot of what Greg wrote about. For example, have we all not been here:

"I realized that my trivial, self-centered mental chatter about the past and future - like a dark cloud blocking the sun - had kept me from seeing the Glory of God that surrounded me every second of every day."

I found many of Pastor Greg's observations to be rather profound - like how the world tends to program us and many of us live as "semi conscious slaves" as in "The Matrix".

And things which intrigued me such as his reporting that the core values of most Christians do not much differ from those of pagans. (I think this may not be true of Catholics and possibly members of other mainstream churches like Lutheran or Southern Baptist though). He also quoted a statistic about only 4 percent of those who come up for an altar call and "accept the Lord", continuing in the Christian walk. I looked for a cite for this which was not provided and again I wonder which congregations Pastor Greg was referring to. I suspect not Catholic and this possibly illustrates that putting people through a rigorous course in religion before they make the commitment such as our RCIA program, might be a wise idea.

I disagree with Pastor Greg about the earth based Heaven (probably referring to a literal interpretation of Revelations but ignoring many other passages which suggest something different).

Greg also seems in places, a bit anti religion, making a sharp distinction between religion and spiritual walk, a definition which is loved by the world but is erroneous in my POV. Greg writes in a blog:

"the religion of Christendom dies a slow death (praise God!)"

In this, he ignores that Jesus founded a church (REF Matt 16:14FF) with a leader (and I even felt that when I was a Protestant reading the KJV).

Truth is, Greg quotes very little scripture in the book although he does quote Brother Lawrence and mostly the non Catholic, Frank Laubach. I missed there not being more Scripture because in places, things he writes, seem to contradict Biblical teachings.

Would I recommend "Present Perfect"? I believe I would, with the caution that you keep in mind that the writer may be writing from an agnostic POV. That being said, the book is profound and clever and very interesting reading and I personally, found it helpful to me. I think anyone reading it, may discover not only, how to pray better but also how to live life more fully.

You can obtain a copy of "PRESENT PERFECT" on Pastor Greg's website or on Amazon.

Book Review: THE NAKED GOSPEL

2010-04-06T10:57:00.000-07:00

NOTE: A copy of THE NAKED GOSPEL by Andrew Farley, was provided me, free of charge by Zondervan, for review purposes.

Andrew Farley, author of THE NAKED GOSPEL, found himself going into what may be suspected to be clinical depression. He writes in the beginning of THE NAKED GOSPEL:

"I found myself lying on the floor of my apartment, sobbing for hours on end: "God, I'm doing everything I'm supposed to do, and I still don't feel closer to you. In fact, I feel worse than ever! How could this have gone wrong? I can't see any way out. Help me."

I think that others have been there and in fact, Farley brings up a couple of famous people, one of which was Martin Luther. He writes:

"[Luther] was constantly overcome with guilt. He was infatuated with self flagellation and made countless attempts to atone for his never ending list of sins. In addition to whipping himself until he bled, he would sometimes lie on the snowy ground all night long in the dead of Winter until eventually, he was in such a state of shock that his colleagues would have carry him to safety."

Farley goes on to mention Mother Teresa's 40 year period of spiritual dryness - quoting her out of context, he suggests that she had a difficult time finding "meaning and purpose" and a "stable relationship with God".

It's not surprising that Farley doesn't understand the complexity of the spiritual dryness of a saint like Blessed Teresa of Calcutta as he's not a Catholic but in the case of Martin Luther, although I have read suggestions that he was a bit too heavy handed with the self punishment when he was an Augustian priest, enough to "worry" his superiors (this I found in an article in the Encyclopedia Americana years ago), in all fairness to him, there is no evidence he spent his whole life in such a mode. Farley doesn't document his claims about Luther so I can't research it further. At the least, Lutherans will take exception to these statements as Luther is, understandably, sort of a hero to those members of the church he founded in the 1500's.

There is no doubt that Farley is a scholar and a brilliantly intelligent individual. In fact, the text of his book, reads similarly to articles I have found in Mensa publications (the IQ group).

For in order to cure his clinical depression (which likely was NOT "caused" by his religion - chances are, the religion was only how he expressed it!), Farley ends up deciding that all laws in the Bible, including the entire teachings of Jesus, are null and void for Christians.

The "harsh teachings of Jesus", he explains, are just too difficult to live by and besides, since Jesus had not died on the cross yet, Jesus was merely speaking to those under the "Old Covenant". The New Covenant began, says Farley, when Jesus died on the cross. He writes further:

"Jesus tells His audience to cut off their hands, to pluck out their eyes and to be perfect just like God...in short He is discouraging his contemporaries as they seek to achieve righteousness through the law." (p. 231)

And concludes that:

"God intended us to be dependent on Him with no concern for morality and ethics...if we get life from the Spirit, then we're not designed to live by the Jewish law, religious rules, a moral code or even Christian "principles"

Farley who is a weekend pastor of a (must be) free spirited church in Texas and a linguistic professor in his day job, leaves no stone unturned, even explaining away the faith plus works passages in James (i.e. "show me your faith without works and I'll show you the faith which underlies my works" and "faith without works is dead").

Farley writes:

"we need to recognize that this passage in James does not seem to be referring to a post salvation experience." p 199

Farley ignores Jesus' statement however that "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law" and makes mention that we should not follow a dead religious teacher (Jesus the man) but the resurrected Christ who is "fused within us". And that we should realize that when Christ is dwelling within us, our wants will be what Jesus wants.

If this is sounding more and more like "New Age" to you, yes, I believe this is very similar to New Age which is really an adulterated mixture of agnosticism and Buddhism with a bit of paganism thrown in. New Age teaches people to look within for the Christ or god or deity within us and to follow that, thus deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. The theological name for this is "moral relativism".

In fact, Farley's gospel sounds very much like the famous New Age "Course in Miracles" which gives similar advice albeit not cloaked in Christian terminology. So even though Farley claims a new (and of course, better) type of Christianity, his ideas are not really new at all and may in fact, be anathema to mainstream Christians.

Farley's complete dismissal of the teachings of Jesus may be, to most mainstream Christians, definitely a serious problem. And Farley's distinct separation of what he calls "Jesus the Man" who taught the Jews how to live according to their law (not applicable to us, says Farley), from Jesus resurrected who indwells, seems to be teaching against traditional Christology. This is not a new type of heresy, having first appeared in the 2nd or 3rd century of Christianity, the on going argument about whether Jesus had two natures, human and Divine or just a Divine nature or just a human nature.

The Catholic church settled the issue in the 4th century by declaring Mary the "mother of God" thus establishing that Mary was not the mother of a nature (i.e. Jesus' human nature) but rather the mother of a Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus who is all Man and all God. Even poorly understood by some Catholics, calling Mary the "mother of God" is really saying something important about Jesus rather than Mary.

Farley's doctrines are very earth centered, another area in which it very much resembles "New Age" thinking. He writes:

"if we merely had a ticket to Heaven, there'd be no power to live in the present." p 181

And

"it's very difficult, if not totally unrealistic to live for something far off in the future. "
P 182

He calls mainstream Christianity a "Lackluster Gospel", writing:

"We're inundated with a lackluster gospel that advocates partial forgiveness, a pressure filled motivation for behavioral change, and the promise of earned rewards in Heaven or a cash return on earth. This counterfeit is the reason that the church sometimes doesn't appear much different from the world." p 192

He feels that all the law in the Bible (which he contradictorily still insists is the 'Word of God') can cause people to sin.

"The law causes sin to increase, not decrease. " p 232

But, I may ask, if the Bible is the Word of God, how could following it, cause people to sin? Lack of desire to follow the Commandments has led many a person into New Age thinking which seemingly comfortably tells us sin is outdated and we are "free", however, it seems that Andrew Farley has gone a step further in bringing New Age thinking into Christianity.

He seems to have forgotten some of the basics like "sin is a moment of pleasure and a lifetime of pain and virtue is a moment of pain and a lifetime of joy" (Bishop Sheen).

Although this book might make interesting reading for agnostics and atheists, especially those into intellectualizing, it seems not appropriate for people really trying to find Jesus through Christianity.

While Farley may feel he is making Christianity palpable to the typical Post Christian hedonist (and he well might be doing this), I have to question his theology as it seems to agree more with New Age philosophy than traditional Christian theology but I guess if that is what it takes to bring him to God, then God can work through that also.

For some, however, the book might seem a way out of the "boring" rules of Christianity and they should keep in mind:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3)

Everyone has their own path - I must say, the book did keep my interest all the way through although I can say that also about the "Course in Miracles". This isn't MY path to God but it's always interesting to read about the paths of others and we can always learn something!

on Amazon...

March for Life -revisiting it

2010-01-26T02:02:00.000-08:00

We went to one of the first Marches for Life in our city, in the late 1970's... a few hundred showed up and we marched and ended up at a Rally which was more of an Evangelical Evangelism effort than anything else. Amidst the music groups, one speaker got up and said 'this is not a church issue but a civil rights issue'. He was basically ignored as the music went on. It was mostly unimpressive to say the least.

So I have skipped all the marches since then but this year, EWTN, the Global Catholic Network, had complete live coverage of both the March on Washington and the West Coast March for life (in San Francisco) and I decided to watch it.

I discovered things have greatly changed since the 1970's. For the March in Washington, 500,000 marchers, by most reports showed up - it looked more like a million when I watched on TV. The speakers included tearful women who regretted their abortions (and were hurt by them), Abby Johnson who ran a Planned Parenthood clinic for several years, who had recently quit her clinic and joined the Pro Life movement after watching a doctor abort a 13 week fetus using guided ultra sound, Lila Rose, a young person who went under cover as a 13 year old seeking an abortion to several Planned Parenthood clinics and discovered they were willing to cover up that her boyfriend was 22 and that they tried to talk her into an abortion and more.

One of the speakers was a Rabbi who was extremely passionate about abortion and how it was hurting women and babies.

Also on the platform were several Congress persons, Catholic Bishops and clergy. And standing behind the speakers on the platform, several women held up signs which read "I regret my abortion".

The weather was cold and grey but this did not stop or slow down the March and the most impressive thing was perhaps that a goodly portion of March attendees were young people. Young people are the hope of our country, the future and if so many of them are pro life, we are looking in much better shape than I've thought.

It rained at the West Coast March for life in San Francisco but 40,000 marchers showed up and marched in the cold rain.

Watching these marches, I'd say the future of the pro life movement looked very hopeful - there was a lot more substance than the Rally I attended 30 years ago.

Things change and sometimes for the better!

Yoga and Pilates - honoring non Christian gods?

2010-01-22T04:01:00.000-08:00

I just read an interesting blog which said that Christians should not do yoga because "every posture is designed as a position of worship to a Hindu god!" Aside from the fact that Hindus have been monotheists for centuries i.e. students of comparative religions tell us that Hindus kind of morphed into monotheism - their God is considered a tri-une God - God the Creator, God the Preserver and God the Destroyer - we should probably take a moment to clarify this issue of doing yoga or pilates etc.

First of all, if we think of it, many common practices can be traced to pre Chirstian times - even those we use in our sacred liturgy like lighting candles for example, and didn't they kneel in pre Christian times? Does that mean by kneeling in church we are honoring a pagan god because kneeling was a posture, originally designed to honor pre Christian deities?

Secondly, many customs we enjoy to celebrate Christian holidays come from pre Christian customs. For example the Christmas tree, that we all love - that comes from the practice of decorating a tree for the drunken debauchery known as "Saturnalia". Santa Claus who bears little to no resemblance to the Catholic Bishop, St Nicholas, is actually, a variation of the Norse god, Thor, who wore a red suit and rode around the sky in a chariot pulled by goats and dropped gifts down the chimneys of "good" children, at Saturnalia time. Also true of the Easter Bunny (and Easter eggs) and more. All of these customs are things we could omit from our celebrations without any medical or physical repercussions but far as I know, most Christians would not feel like Christmas without the decorated tree -- even the Vatican has a Christmas tree. And although we have not put up a Christmas tree in our home for many years, I did very much enjoy the exquisite decorations we had in our parish this year which included several Christmas trees.

I can see where a Christian might not want to do the meditational part of Yoga i.e. the "OM" mantra's etc. But then, I suppose if one were to use that as a launch into a prayer meditation about Our Lord, that might be ok also. I like to do the Divine Mercy Chaplet when I'm doing yoga.

This isn't an original idea with me. There is a physician, Dr Anne who practices a form of TAI CHI combining it with signing the words (deaf sign language) of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. I've done this with the DVD (she is a devout Catholic - this physician) and it's a very touching prayer experience.

Fact remains, medicine recognizes Yoga as an EXTREMELY healthy practice to maintain muscle tone, avoid contracture and even to treat or minimize arthritis (see for example, Arnot, Bob, MD "WEAR AND TEAR",NY 2001, in which he points out that studies have suggested that in countries where folks do Yoga, knee replacement surgery is almost unheard of).

As a person who does yoga 4 times a week or more, I can attest to the fact, that it's a very healthy practice. I don't take a class but I have watched classes on TV to learn the poses. I have a routine I do which takes about 15-20 minutes depending on how long I hold each pose.

Catholics are often accused of "formal idolatry" (worshipping statues) when we pray the "Hail Mary" but the bottom line is that few if any folks, even folks who belong to non theist religions, practice formal idolatry any more today. However, as I point out to those who thus accuse Catholics, "Practical idolatry" i.e. considering money or career or a person more important than God, is COMMONLY practiced in our society today and yet, while being so fearful of "formal idolatry", Christians are seldom even warned about "practical idolatry".

Apparently those in the early church even Jesus' disciples may have been confused about things which is probably why Jesus told us in Mark 7:14-15 " Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile."

In other words, with neutral things like Yoga, Pilates etc, it may be true that "it's not what ya do but the way that ya do it!" :)

God gave us all these things to enjoy. And practices like Yoga and Pilates, besides being wonderful for the physique, can also SIGNIFICANTLY reduce stress, which medicine has long recognized as a prominent player in all types of illness and heart disease.

This sounds more to me like being nice to our "Temples of the Holy Spirit" which IS honoring OUR God.

the Manhattan Declaration - Time for Civil Disobedience?

2009-11-25T01:49:00.000-08:00

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote that it was time for the sleeping Christians to wake up and stop our country from an ever plunging downward spiral to total immorality and depravity.

Apparently, other Christians and Catholics have come to the same conclusion and have drafted a document called "the Manhattan Declaration". In the Manhattan Declaration, it is stated that Christians will NOT tolerate nor participate in three urgent issues:

Life Issues like abortion, euthanesia and embryo destructive stem cell research

Sanctioning same se/x marriage

Persecution of individuals for practicing their faith (calling teaching against illicit se/x etc a "hate crime")

Sadly, the dealbreaker which seems to have awakened the sleeping giant was the third point. I say, "sadly" because it seems that 35 years of our slaughtering the unborn to the tune of 1.4 million unborn babies a year (99 percent which are NOT the so called "hard cases" i.e. rape and incest) wasn't enough to get folks upset enough. It took threatening their very persons to get them to wake up.

Religious persecution has been happening all along, worldwide. One estimate put the number of priests and other Christians who suffered martyrdom in the last 30 years to be at an all time high but suddenly with the election of a president who likely is Christian in name only (if that- they have film clips of him ridiculing the Bible) and a "hate crimes" law in Canada, things are getting closer to home and it's getting a bit "hot in the kitchen" so to speak.

For example, in Canada, a Bishop was arrested and tried for a "hate crime" - his offense? Writing a letter to the Catholics in HIS diocese stating the Catholic teachings on same se/x marriage which is considered an "intrinsic evil".

The Bishop was released but not before he spent thousands of dollars in his defense.

In Washington, two Senators are going after the Catholic Bishops committee because they told Congress they would not support a Health Care Bill which used tax moneys to pay for abortions.

In New Jersey, a Methodist church is being sued because they refused to rent out their hall to a same se/x couple who wanted to use it for a "wedding" reception.

And in Massachusetts, the only state in the union where same s/ex marriage is legal, Catholic Charities, the largest adoption agency in the USA which has placed thousands of children, had to close its doors or be forced to place children in homes considered not healthy according to their beliefs. Also, children in that state in public schools are taught that s/s marriage is a valid lifestyle regardless of what the parents would like their children taught. Parents are told they don't have a say in what their kids are taught.

All over the country, though, persecution against religion especially Christianity, is increasing. Parents tell stories like their children are not allowed to wear teashirts to school with a religious theme because that's a "hate crime". One child was told that she couldn't tell her friends at recess about her First Communion. Stories like that are too prevalent to ignore the trend.

Also in public schools, it's ok to teach Islam and witchcraft, but NOT ok to EVEN MENTION Christianity or Judaism.

With the "hate crimes" bill in effect and the possible sanctioning of unrestricted abortion in health care, we face a new peril i.e. health care workers being forced to act against their moral code, Catholic hospitals possibly closing their doors because of being forced to do abortions and more.

And so the sleeping majority is beginning to wake up.

Will the Manhattan Declaration lead to "Civil disobedience"? One of the clergypersons told Fox News he hoped not but if people are forced to do immoral acts like abortion, it may lead to that, like, he pointed out, Martin Luther King led civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws. (How ironic that a president who has Martin Luther King and the civil rights activists to thank for his being ABLE To be elected is oppressing believers - he should know better).

The real irony of this is that many Christians swallowed their distaste for the millions of abortions and other problems and voted for this president because of his promises to fix the economy and end the war. Barack Obama has ESCALATED the war with no end in sight and has spent almost up to the limit for the national debt some 11 trillion dollars, very little of which the American people have seen. It's true you can buy a car now for a couple of thousand bucks cheaper than you could a few years ago but who's buying with unpaid furloughs and lay-offs and pay cuts. Medicare premiums will go double in the next few years, we are told.

And the unemployment percentage is at 17 percent which is higher than it was in the Great Depression of the 1930's - it was 15 percent then. But as Mr Obama laughingly told one of the late night talk show hosts, "So much for campaign promises".

In the meantime, Christians may be called upon to act the part, perhaps for the first time in a couple of hundred years.

Opposition from the world is the price we pay for following Christ. No pain, no gain. Why should that surprise us? If living the Gospel were easy, all the world would be saints. But the Gospel is demanding. It rubs against our fallen human nature. It demands of us — and even makes us unpopular. Why? Because people who do good are a thorny reminder to those who don´t. It shouldn´t surprise us that the neighbors look down on us for having so many kids. Or that the guys in the dorm snicker at us for living chastely. Or that the boss overlooks us for a promotion because we wouldn´t donate to that pro-abortion group last Christmas during the company fund drive. Do I realize that to be a Christian is to be persecuted?

-- Father Edward McIlmail, LC

Book Review: The Year of Living like Jesus by Ed Dobson

2009-10-28T02:03:00.000-07:00

NOTE: this book was provided for review by Zondervan.

The cover of Pastor Ed Dobson's "the Year of living like Jesus" states "It may appear from the cover as a nice book about growing a beard because Jesus did but be warned..."

Dr. Ed Dobson was diagnosed with ALS, 9 years ago and told he had 2-5 years of life left. As he says in one of his videos on the Ed's Story website , a website about his journey with ALS, he thought if he were diagnosed with a terminal disease, that's when he would get serious about praying and reading the Bible but he is finding that rather, he is concentrating on living his life to the fullest for as long as God has him here.

He likely has the type of ALS that Stephen Hawking has (very slowly progressive) so he might be here for a while yet and he seems to be making the best of it for now, as far as enjoying a bit of fame. He's appeared on "Good Morning America" and is apparently doing some book tours with this book I am reviewing. He's also on Twitter (according to his "tweets" he's on the road now) and has a blog website called, "livingJesusly.com"

It seems Reverend Ed Dobson who has accomplished a lot in his life (pastored a church for several years, worked with Jerry Falwell and even done some TV work) is a charming sort of man as well as clever and well educated. He is very highly respected as an evangelical Pastor and was voted "Pastor of the year" in 1993 by the Moody Bible Institute.

In "THE YEAR OF LIVING LIKE JESUS", Dr Dobson spins a good tale and does acquaint the reader with several stories from the Gospels, re-told in an understandable manner. He also includes interesting experiences with observing Jewish law, dress and Kosher cuisine.

But he (like many clever people, I would suppose) is anything but conventional. His living like Jesus did not extend to things becoming inconvenient for him. His fasting for 40 days ended up being 1 day. He also enjoyed comfortably traveling in a vintage Corvette and had a difficult time parting with his tailor made suits, although he wrote that this might be the right thing to do if he really wanted to "live like Jesus".

In sharing his accumulated wealth with the poor, he wrote

"Of course I wasn't willing to give everything away, my house, my cars, my savings and my retirement. But I thought Lorna and I could give away one or two week's salary. Then we'd have to trust God to meet our needs."

Dobson did in fact, he said, go into bars to reach those who would never darken a church door and have a beer with them and perhaps show a view of a Christian which they could better tolerate than the traditional view. He wrote:

"I would often go down to the bar, sit up at the counter, drink a beer and talk about God, which Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard,"

This seems to be taking the Bible out of context to me - something which is easier to do if one is not guided by the Roman Catholic Magesterium and left to one's own devices in interpreting the Bible. As Fr Corapi on EWTN says, "You can use the bible to prove ANYTHING!". Very true.

Dr Dobson also stated that he was finding atheists and agnostics easier to deal with than some Christians because they were "less judgmental". Although it is easy to get that idea, one finds that they are only "less judgmental" when you don't get TOO much into what Jesus taught. I find that in my later years when I have become closer to the church, I am not popular at all. But of course, neither was Jesus.

In the Wikipedia, in his biography, it states that although he worked with Jerry Falwell, he, by 1980, had decided the "Moral Majority" had been wrongheaded about politics changing the country.

By the time, he wrote "The Year of Living Like Jesus", he seems to have drifted from Conservatism enough to justify abortion as not being an important issue "because Jesus never mentioned it" and voted for Obama because he felt Obama more exemplified what Jesus taught, a stance which endeared him to the media. He still loves Jerry Falwell, he stated on "Twitter" and wishes Jerry would call him. He lamented that he upset Conservatives with his voting decision, though not too much - apparently he felt that his stance about disregarding the 5000 unborn killed daily as a non issue and voting for Obama was right and Conservatives are incorrect and perhaps not "Jesusly" about this issue.

I personally felt that he should not have spent time on politics at all in a book about a spiritual journey but that's my opinion. I do NOT think abortion is a non issue and I feel that Jesus who is the Word of God through Whom "all was created" (see John 1:1 ff) would NOT advocate voting for a candidate financed by the abortion industry who openly promises abortion providers that he will advocate unrestricted abortion (whether the American people want that or not). And of course, it's questionable that a politician who does not have concern for the youngest and weakest of humans would really have concern for the poor, and disabled humans already born.

Perhaps this is what I found less than inspiring about this book. It often seems to express more the worldly view rather than the strictly Christian view.

That is, we don't have to grow a beard, nor eat Kosher food, nor attend services in a synagogue to live like Jesus - we just have to love one another, reach out to those in need, share more than what is comfortable, pray a lot and stand up courageously for "truth, justice and the American way" which is often less than endearing in our world as well as, a most difficult thing to do. My impression of Rev. Dobson's walk was that it was, perhaps a bit lacking in the hard line things about living like Jesus - you know, the things which eventually got Jesus crucified.

What might be interesting to Catholics is that Rev Dobson did pray the Rosary at least some of the time and found it a good way of praying. Perhaps one day, he might be appearing on EWTN's "Journey Home" program as one who has decided to return to the Mother church. Stranger things have happened. We never know where a journey will end.

If I found some of Rev Dobson's stands to be less than inspiring, I also found his candor and honesty, very refreshing. He seems to be up front with how he is feeling which is a very good quality and definitely (as he would say) "Jesusly".

Would I recommend the book? Ed Dobson states in his blog that:

"I wrote this book for those on the fringes of the faith. People who are interested in Jesus but not "the church." I did not write for those who are in the church. My passion has always been for those who are "unchurched."

I do agree that this book would be interesting and intriguing for the very group Rev. Dobson mentioned above - the unchurched, the agnostics and so forth, an entertaining way to acquaint yourself with what Christianity teaches and providing you with much food for thought. Also for those with a terminal illness or who are dealing with disability, perhaps this book (and also the Ed's Story website) might be very inspiring and helpful for you. As for the serious mainline Christian or Catholic, you might consider giving it a try - whether you agree with Rev Dobson or not, you certainly will find "The Year of Living Like Jesus", intriguing and a good read.

This book is available on Amazon or for more information please visit Dr Ed's website, http://livingjesusly.com/

Time for the sleeping Majority to wake up and get activist

2009-10-17T04:39:00.001-07:00

Obama's new strategy

Recently President Obama has come out strongly, saying he will work to destroy the protections for traditional marriage. (The Protection of Marriage Act was signed by President Clinton). The Gay and Lesbian community is delighted of course. And nasty. On Facebook, I expressed concern about Obama receiving the Peace Prize and one "friend" who is gay, and supposedly a long time friend in real life, has dropped both myself and hubby from his friendship.

I asked myself why our president is catering to this small minority and then, I realized why.

They may be a small minority but they have learned what the Christian majority has NOT YET learned and that is that activism works.

The Gay and Lesbian community unlike the mostly sleeping passive Christians, is loud and "in your face" and activist and Obama figures they will help him trample on Christian morals and rights -- again.

In the meantime, Congress is rushing through, Healthcare "reform" which is actually pushing us toward a government option which will pay for killing babies in the womb but NOT PAY FOR procedures for the elderly (they have in place a board which will figure out the cost vs the "years of life left" and pay or not pay on that basis).

Republicans have been totally shut out of the sessions formulating these bills and Democrats are hoping that they have enough of a majority to push it through Congress. They are "fast tracking it" as a "budget reform" bill.

Who will pay for the 850 billion bucks it will cost in the next 10 years? Mostly the middle class in greatly raised premiums and taxes. (Obama promised to NOT stick it to the middle class but of course, his promises are worthless).

What is their hope? That the Christians will stay apathetic and passive and will forget about being trampled on, in 6 months when the 2010 election happens.

Are they right about this? What IS going to make us angry enough to vote EN MASSE and get rid of these no good politicians and especially this president? What is going to make us angry enough to stop abortion, to stop the mass killing of babies? What is going to make us angry enough to put some REAL pressure on Congress to behave themselves and stop trampling upon, not only the majority of Americans but also all the values upon which this country was founded?

There is a famous story about a Christian church during the holocaust - this church was located close to a railroad, where trains ran carrying hundreds of Jews and others, screaming for help, to the place where they were tortured and killed. If a train ran by during the service, the minister would simply tell the organist to "play louder" so to drown out the cries of agonizing humans.

Are we who continue to allow these unspeakable acts against the very most vulnerable of human beings, all that different from the folks in the German church?

This is how sick these people are - this woman, a late term abortionist, describes untold horrors about abortion and says abortionists should "get honest" about the "downsides" so they can "continue to help women". This was published in a medical journal called "Reproductive Health"

Lisa Harris describes aborting a second trimester pre born baby while she was pregnant

Please watch this clip from "Judgment in Nuremberg" - if we do not fight this holocaust of human unborn which is beginning to extend to the elderly and handicapped, then we are also allowing it to happen and are a party to unspeakable crime!

Remember, Germany's problems started with the legalization of abortion, 20 years before the Jewish holocaust and then, with the election of a power drunk individual who sold himself and his administration on economic issues.

"Who does not study history is doomed to repeat it"

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent" (Raymond Burke)

Mr President, the American people can read

2009-08-20T02:39:00.000-07:00

The protesters to the so called Health Care reform of Obama's, are not (as Obama says) "lying" or "terrorists" but simply asking questions about things stated IN THE BILL for which we have received NO ANSWERS TO DATE other than to trust Obama which is hard to do with ANY politician and especially one who has broken a lot of his campaign promises very early in his term. The following blog - by a lady who read EVERY WORD of the health care bill (HR 3200) expresses well, concerns and questions many of us have. Now can anyone really ANSWER these concerns with other than calling us liars and conspirators and terrorists or telling us to "trust Obama"?

Mr. President -- American Citizens Can Read . . . .

Most Americans, including Republicans, favor real health care reform . . . . we just don't want a government takeover of our health care . . . and neither do the majority of the American people. The townhalls (those not staged, that is) show frustration more than anger. Are you listening? People want reform, not a dismantling of the system. Where are the true reforms like limiting malpractice? Where are the efforts to cut down the real fraud committed by some?

Why are many concerned citizens (including many moderate democrats and independents) being stereotyped as a vast right wing "unAmerican" conspiracy "mob." You disparage those who disagree with you by stating they created the problem and you don't want to hear from them.. . . so they need to sit down and shut up. Those were not your exact words, but it certainly is the message you conveyed.

You campaigned on the promise of a more transparent and open government . . . so far, I see little evidence of any CHANGE . . . except for more behind the scenes negotiations to further a very liberal agenda. The health care reform issue only highlights that you believe when citizens ask questions -- it is enough to just say . . . "Trust me, health care reform will reduce costs, expand coverage, and improve quality." Well, Mr. President, that is NOT enough! Apparently, the idea that American citizens would actually read the proposed bills and ask SPECIFIC questions never occurred to you.

Believe it or not, private citizens are intelligent and understand that under the government plan costs will go up -- not down -- and the only way government can control costs is through additional taxes and by rationing services. The House bill creates a new “Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research” to gather data and to determine which treatments and drugs are the most cost-effective in handling particular medical cases. Would you please explain how a panel of “experts” (chosen by politicians) who establish a standardized one-size-fits-all treatment based on their cost effectiveness will improve the health of American citizens? Cost effective to whom?

Would you explain why a new Health Care Commissioner, appointed by you, Mr. President, would have the unprecedented authority to determine what is "acceptable" health care coverage and establish the rules for what ALL health care coverage MUST include. And be honest, doesn't that MUST include coverage include abortions? If it does not, why are there attempts to block amendments that specifically prohibit the use of tax-payers money for abortions? The Health Care Commissioner which you will be appointment will also have the authority to determine what treatments patients could receive and at what cost. Who would you appoint as the new Commissioner to have this awesome responsibility? One of your present "czars" perhaps? Personally, I have concerns about the ideologies of some of these "advisers."

Would you please explain how "if we like our current insurance, we can keep it" will not be affected by the requirement that private insurers must comply with new coverage and underwriting rules in order to offer insurance? Oh, by-the-way, was the 5-year grace period included in the House bill so you could publicly state this claim? Would it not be more honest to say "if we like our current insurance, it is grandfathered for 5-years?"

Would you please explain why health insurance should be mandatory for ALL but only cost those who can afford to pay for it? Most Americans cannot really afford health insurance -- but responsible citizens make health care a priority and "budget" for the cost. Compassionate citizens acknowledge there are some who absolutely cannot pay for their health care and agree that taxpayers should. But Mr. President, do you really expect the American people not to complain when they see recipients of Medicaid, food stamps, free school lunches, subsidized-housing, etc. wearing $140.00 tennis shoes, designer jeans, carrying cell-phones and I-pods? Since many of those presently uninsured will be going into Medicaid programs, shouldn't some attempt be made for abuse prevention? How many of the uninsured which will be covered under this reform are not even in this country legally? Now that's abusive -- to average, everyday, tax-paying citizens.

While you are at it, would you give the American people an estimate of how much this health care reform is going to "grow government" -- I came up with at least 3 new agencies, a powerful new Commissioner, 3 or 4 advisory panels, 2 task forces, and a medical device registry, before I gave up the count ! ! ! And you really want the American people to believe that the government is not going to micro-manage their health care? Really?

And, by-the-way, isn't the authority of the HHS Secretary to use electronic transactions to determine an individual's financial responsibility AT THE POINT OF SERVICE, including whether the individual is "eligible for a specific service, with a specific physician, at a specific facility" just a little invasive on American citizens? To say nothing of being an administrating nightmare? Is it really necessary when a machine-readable health plan benefits identification card will be issued as set out in the House bill?

These are only some of the questions which American citizens would like to have answered. Would you please enlighten us with some truthful detailed answers instead of the partial truths and meaningless talking points we continue to hear. Yes, Mr. President, Americans can read . . . . and buckets with holes will not hold water!

I am signing my real name . . . just in case someone forwards this information by email to others who might view this text as "fishy."

-- Diana Schwab --

Thanks for Diana for her permission to share...

President Obama and the Pope - what REALLY happened

2009-07-13T11:19:00.000-07:00

As we can expect, the meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI was badly misreported, even by Catholic news service. We must read the news media critically, remembering that reporters are often given deadlines in terms of HOURS which is all too often, not NEAR the time they need to research stories, let alone, write them up for publication.

While not expecting reporters to do what they physically can't, we need to realize that on certain subjects such as medical studies or Papal encyplicals, the media is about the worst source you can read, EVEN groups like Catholic News Service.

So I researched the meeting with a source who actually interviewed Fr Frederico Lombardi, spokesperson for the Vatican (Raymond Arroyo of EWTN).

As for what the encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, really says, I did the best type of research - I read it in its entirety, myself spending about 4 hours, studying it, carefully.

Unlike the media has suggested, it's not a wimpy document but rather as strong in its condemnation of abortion, euthanesia, same sex marriage and immorality as is Humana Vitae or the "Gospel of Life" but newly profound in that it presents an extremely strong argument for the need for ALL development; economic, technological, medical, sociological or otherwise, to be ROOTED in truth and morality and THE PROFOUND respect for human life from conception to natural death, and states rather bluntly that unless it IS thus rooted, it will not only fail but also, have a destructive effect on society.

Benedict gave Obama, as a gift, an autographed copy of "Caritas in Veritate", his newly released encyclical. And it DOES get specific, least one might misunderstand, so if Obama really reads this extremely profound document, he will INDEED, get an eye-full.

It is rather certain, however, that the Pope in his meeting with Obama reiterated some of what he wrote in "Caritas in Veritate".

And to underline the seriousness of the life issues at stake, he also gave Obama a copy of the instruction, "Dignitus Personae" the Vatican's 2008 document on bioethics and respect for human life and condemning, embryonic stem cell research.

Fr Frederico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman said "there is no need to hide it - giving the book to the President was to be clear it was NOT polemical." (an attempt to teach the President 'here is WHAT WE BELIEVE and WHY WE BELIEVE IT').

Fr Lombardi also said the president told the Pope he was "committed to reducing the number of abortions" but recently the administration under great pressure from the abortion providers (who financed Obama's campaign) stated that it sees good reason to reduce the NEED for abortions but NOT THE NUMBER of abortions now being performed.

So what BHO told the Pope would represent a "reversal of policy" however, on the home front the Administration is doing as some prolife folks suspected they would do i.e. passing "FOCA" in small segments as attached to other bills.

Thus the Catholic News Service article which stated that the Vatican said Obama has not done any harm to the pro-life cause yet, was incorrect. He is INDEED, fulfilling his promises to the abortion providers who financed his campaign.

Here is just what recently transpired in the last week:

According to the Catholic Family Institute, the Obamas have introduced "sweeping language on abortion rights" at the United Nations calling for "universal access to reproductive health and family planning services". (U-N-speak for abortion and contraception)

And in Washington, a Senate panel has passed legislation that would codify into law, President Obama's January directive to fund abortion promoters and providers overseas, a reversal of the so called Mexico city policy instituted by Bush which stopped this funding. NOTE: This was an E.O. but Obama wants to make it a law, so it can NOT be easily reversed by the next president.

Meanwhile on Capital Hill, a Senate committee drafting the Health Care reform bill this week, accepted language that COMPELS insurance companies to pay for abortions. The amendment was Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski's and it was accepted by one vote.

Finally on Monday last week, the NIH released guidelines for the President's decision to fund "embryo DESTROYING" embryonic stem cell research. The National Catholic Bishop's committee complained about the broader guidelines and pointed out that the comments of 30,000 people objecting to these guidelines on the NIH site, were ignored (Comments were solicited by the administration about these guidelines)

This last action is progressing full speed ahead, even though embryonic stem cell therapy has been declared by several scientists to be a "dead end research" because in all the rat studies and one human study (in Asia) the transplantation of embryonic stem cells has not cured any disease but has CAUSED the growth of cancerous tumors.

(Dr Oz, Oprah's medical advisor pointed out on National TV, that if this dead end research is funded, other stem cell research which is ALREADY CURING DISEASE (as well as being ethical and NOT destroying any kind of human life) is denied funding.)

The acting director of the NIH said it wasn't a question of whether embryonic stem cell research should be funded but HOW it should be funded.

Every one of the above actions was CONDEMNED STRONGLY by the Pope's new encyplical, Caritas in Veritate which I have now READ in entirety and I would suggest that every Catholic (and educated person) do same if they can possibly swing it: Link to document on the Vatican website

The following is a taste of how incredibly profound Caritas in Veritate is:

Here's what the Pope said about abortion (in part - although respect for human life is woven throughout the document):

"we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the "culture of death" has at its disposal.

To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future - indeed it is already surreptiously present - the systematic eugenic programming of births.

At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living.

Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect.

Insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated.

While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human.(Paragraph 75: Caritas in Veritate)

Here's what the Pope wrote about drugs (and what he might have discussed with President Obama):

The new forms of slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many people fall can be explained not only in sociological and psychological terms but also in essentially spiritual terms. The emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned, despite the availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads to suffering. There cannot be holistic development and universal common good unless people's spiritual and moral welfare is taken into account, considered in their totality as body and soul.(paragraph 76 Caritas in Veritate)

He referred to the widespread rejection of God as the greatest obstacle to development stating that:

"A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism." (paragraph 78)

He strongly advocates that marriage MUST BE between a MAN and a WOMAN suggesting that otherwise can be nothing but destructive.

Also he gives a set of rather strong reasons why decreasing the population is a bad idea:

"Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies.

The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called 'replacement level', also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the 'brain pool' upon which nations can draw for their needs.

Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness. " (paragraph 44 Caritas in Veritate)

What he might have told Obama about Immigration is this:

"We are all witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation and the aspirations that accompany the flow of migrants. The phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country through their labour, besides that which they make to their country of origin through the money they send home. Obviously, these labourers cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They must not, therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance" (paragraph 62).

On Poverty:

Poverty is often produced by a rejection of God's love, by man's basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself, thinking himself to be self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a random universe. (paragraph 53)

And about the environment, he states that although nature is a gift from God to be treated with utmost respect, we cannot respect Nature while disrespecting the sanctity of human life.

Love, stated the Pope, without respect for human life and without being founded in the truth, becomes the opposite thereof:

"Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word 'love' is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite." (Paragraph 1)

My favorite one liner! (AMEN!!!):

Pope Paul VI noted that 'the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking' (paragraph 53)

Finally in the conclusion, he urges ALL to PRAY - at least to pray the "Our Father" often:

"In union with the only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray to the Father and to ask him, in the words that Jesus himself taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living according to his will, to receive the daily bread that we need, to be understanding and generous towards our debtors, not to be tempted beyond our limits, and to be delivered from evil (cf. Mt 6:9-13)."

Basically, if you thought "Humana Vitae" (which turned out to include extremely profound predictions on what destruction on the family and human life, the encouragement of contraception would bring) and "The Gospel of Life" (JP II) were strong, know that "Caritas in Veritate" is EQUALLY strong and utterly profound in so much that it is so INCLUSIVE and actually presents an excellent case of why the survival of society DEPENDS upon morality, and ethics and a strong reliance on God, being THE FIRST REASON for all decisions even in things like economics and politics.

Mistake not - this is not only NOT the wimpy document the news media made it out to be but rather bound to go down in history as one of Benedict XVI/Ratzinger's greatest and most profound writings (in a life characterized by profound thinking and great contributions to society).

Great book: Tour de Force by Elizabeth White

2009-07-05T16:57:00.000-07:00

So are you tired of the endless "love stories" in books and TV where love is defined as hopping into the sack on the first date and shacking up long before marriage is ever discussed?

And are you looking for a story which not only mentions God but has a theme of God running through it which is about REAL people with real life situations?

Sounds like Elizabeth White's TOUR DE FORCE may be the right book for you! But Caution, it's also an exciting page turner so you may not be able to put it down (that DID happen to me as I became interested in the exciting plot of this book and I enjoyed every moment!)

TOUR DE FORCE takes place among ballerinas in a New York setting and in Alabama (the author is apparently from Alabama!) and plunges you into the colorful world of the professional ballet, a world which those of us not involved wouldn't have a chance to experience otherwise. White pens skillfully, painting clear images of the world of ballet, the experiences and feelings of a ballerina - so well, that the reader actually feels what it's like to BE a dancer.

The main characters in TOUR DE FORCE are people the reader gets to know well - the book is so much fun, it's almost a disappointment to get to the end of it!

And it HAS a happy ending (another thing we don't see much of these days!).

Intertwined throughout the whole book is a refreshing morality - not at all "preachy" but just refreshing - people are NOT hopping into the sack and human situations arise but are treated with charity.

TOUR DE FORCE is not a "romance" but a REAL LOVE story of the type we seldom see these days! The type of story where two people, one of them a young prima ballerina named Gilly Kinkaid and the other, a director named Jacob, slowly begin to realize that they are the soul mates God has picked out for each other. Gilly and Jacob are real people, not Holy Card figures, but people we can relate to. The well written book with many surprise events (and even some mystery!) - leaves the reader on the edge of his/her seat until the last page!

This is one of the most delightful fictional works I have read in a long time and I think if you are a reader of this blog you WILL enjoy the book immensely - I would really recommend it ... click here to for more info

To read more about the author, here's her blog.

a REAL commencement speaker - Steve Jobs

2009-05-26T04:27:00.000-07:00

Stanford University was a lot smarter than Notre Dame in their choice of a commencement speaker. While Obama droned on about coming to a “common ground” on what HE called “irreconcilable differences” about beliefs in abortion (like that’s really relevant to graduating seniors… NOT… BHO TOTALLY politicized his speech but stupid ND for choosing him!), this speaker in the youtube below, Steve Jobs, shared about his life and how he ended up making a success with no college education (he was a college dropout and also was adopted – his birth mother didn’t want him – good she didn’t believe in abortion, isn’t it) and ends with advice everyone can use regardless of their religious or moral beliefs.

I found this interesting and one of the best commencement speeches I’ve ever heard – it’s short only 15 minutes but worth listening to. It would have been “the right thing” for Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, to select a keynote speaker who did not oppose Catholic moral teachings. But often the “right thing” is also the smarter thing as you may agree when you listen to Steve Jobs speak:

80 year old Catholic priest arrested for quietly protesting

2009-05-17T01:32:00.000-07:00

Besides the questions we might ask like why would a CATHOLIC University call the police on an 80 year old Catholic priest and some of his friends who were quietly walking around campus, carrying a cross and pro life signs, the bigger question we might ask (well there are several) is what is happening to freedom of speech? We would have never seen THIS type of thing even a decade ago!

Our generation cries in outrage at the death of a dog but ignores the deaths of millions of unborn babies? Is upset about a rough interrogation of some terrorist enemy of the country to get information to save lives but not upset about the ripping apart of a baby in the womb for the convenience of the adults?

And a Catholic school which charges thousands of bucks a semester to offer a safe environment in which parents can be assured their young folks will be protected from things Catholics feel are immoral, violating this trust which is not only against Catholic principles but is CHEATING those parents who have entrusted their progeny to this school?

These ARE hard times. Christians need to take back our country soon before it's too late.

Watch and weep:

Dr Oz announces that embryonic stem cells are a dead end and will NOT be the cure!

2009-04-10T11:06:00.000-07:00

One of the IMPORTANT agendas in this administration is embryonic stem cell research and it's a complex issue about which we are only getting partial information. The Catholic church is against this because it wastes a human life even in the embryo but it's a hard issue because the question is, since there are so many embryos already created in the test tube so to speak, what to do with them? Is it right, the pundits argue, to allow them to die when they possibly could help many people in finding a cure for horrible diseases like Parkinson's? The issue is so confusing that few know the difference between DIFFERENT TYPES of stem cells (less undifferentiated vs totally undifferentiated which is what embryonic stem cells are) or what "stem cells" even ARE. But most folks have seen the poignant films of Michael J. Fox shaking a lot, begging the voter to allow this "life saving" research.

Note: Some experts pointed out that Fox's sometimes shaking can be caused by a double dose of his medication, a statement which the news media condemned folks for uttering ("how heartless") and yet, on the Oprah show, Michael J. Fox admitted that his medication sometimes causes him to shake MORE.

Back to embryonic stem cell research, I had read quite a bit about it, but it was all coming from Catholic sources and knowing the creditability Catholic sources have (sadly) even among Catholics, I figured "who's going to believe THEM?" and thus, I have kept silent on the issue and continued to do more research.

My research has pointed out that they have done rat studies on doing embryonic stem cell implants with disastrous results... the stem cells grew tumors and killed all the rats! I did find evidence of this on the web although anything AGAINST embryonic stem cells is hard to find since it's such a political football for the pro abortion side!

Supposedly there was a small human study on Parkinson's patients with an embryonic stem cell implant with the same disastrous results as in the rat study... the patients who had the implants, so goes the story, all died because the embryonic stem cells grew tumors in their brains. But unfortunately, I have NOT been able to find evidence of this study on the web AT ALL so did not feel "ethical" in reporting about it. I waited, PENDING...

Well, folks, the PENDING has happened. The exploding of the truth of how embryonic stem cells have CURED nothing and on the contrary are a dead end research, and on national TV, FROM a respected physician, and author and ON a hostile source at that, the Oprah show (Oprah is extremely in favor of embryonic stem cell research and was in fact, pushing it on that show before Dr Oz made his unexpected announcement!).

Here is the video which the Oprah show has NOW removed from Oprah.com! But it happened because I just happened to have recorded that show (wanted to see Dr Oz and Michael J Fox) and I backed it up when I heard Dr Oz make that announcement and sure enough!!! He actually DID say that.

time is marching on - are we??

2009-03-05T15:31:00.001-08:00

Hi anyone who is reading this. Do you ever feel frustrated? I feel like that right now. Because basically most parts of the pro life movement (OK I will admit there are a few mavericks in the crowd and I'll give their websites later) are proceeding using the same strategies which have NOT worked for us in the past - not really as shown by our total and unutterable loss on this last election.

As we speak, the Democrats and Obama are busy unraveling everything we've done in 35 years.

According to Randall Terry (and I SO AGREE with him!!!) we only have one option left to us. To educate the people and make SURE we fire a bunch of Congress persons in 2010. We can get a pro life majority again in Congress if we START working now.

As far as "alerting" the pundits, it doesn't do any good. The only thing the march in Washington did is the warn the media to intensify their efforts to smear pro lifers in the press - thus the lastest bunch of insults calling us "terrorists" etc. We got by some estimates over 400,000 in Washington and who knows how many more in San Francisco (TOTAL media silence on that march).

In other words, we alerted THE WRONG people.

Remember Teddy Roosevelt's advice? "Walk softly but carry a BIG STICK!" We should be making FAR LESS NOISE and FAR MORE PLANS.

Randall Terry is leading a great effort - please go to his website - let's join with him. A humble plea He says too, "LET'S FIRE THESE PEOPLE IN 2010". With a targeted vote, we CAN get back, at least, a majority in Congress which would go a long way to neutralize the untold damage being done to our cause as we speak.

Randall has joined the Catholic Church by the way and one thing we REALLY need to do is educate the Catholics because 52 percent of us voted for Obama and the Democrats in this last election. We need to get those folks back in OUR camp. If you go to Randall's website, Randall has ideas of how to do that.

The other real activist pro life group is "Priests for Life". Fr Frank Pavone, the head of PFL is dynamic and brilliant. Again he is about educating the public and working toward firing more than a few politicians in 2010 (that's only ONE YEAR FROM NOW). They have some excellent literature on their website. See them at Priests for life.org

If we focus in our support in aligning with these two groups, I think we can achieve what we need to do which is work toward stopping the killing.

As individuals, we each need to realize that we should be doing something activist each day. Like praying the Rosary for life. Our lady told the children at Fatima that if only a percentage of Catholics prayed a daily Rosary, WW II could have been stopped.

But we also have to make sure WE are educated. Read Randall's literature. Look at Fr Pavone's photos and listen to his videos and audios. We need to STOP BEING SILENT but to TALK to folks around us. Fr Pavone said on EWTN the other day "there are some lives only YOU can save."

A good example of individual activism is the 73 year old fiddler in San Luis Obispo who plays well enough to gather a large audience at a local restaurant. He ALWAYS, courageously, displays his pro life signs. You can read about him and hear his great playing at http://prolifefiddlin.org/

With a focused effort and God on our side, there is no way we canNOT reverse the evils which are happening now and to save those infants being wantonly killed, 9 per minute in the USA.

Pope rebukes Pelosi for her pro abortion stance

2009-02-18T16:21:00.000-08:00

It's hard to imagine that Nancy Pelosi actually expected the Pope to agree with her pro abortion stance. I suspect she planned to pose for a picture with him and fudge the details for the news. A picture of the Pope and Pelosi smiling, arm in arm would have been a gem which published without any details might have suggested that despite her pro abortion stance, he approved of Nancy who sells herself as a "good Catholic".

Nancy's hopes were dashed to pieces today, however, when Benedict barred all photographers and reporters from her 15 minute private audience with him. Apparently according to the Vatican press release, Benedict XVI spent most of the 15 minutes instructing Pelosi about the Natural Law and the church's teachings on the Sanctity of life, politely reminding her that her pro abortion stance is putting her "in serious difficulties as a Catholic". He told her it was his duty as her Pastor to warn her about this. Benedict XVI speaks several languages fluently including English so he likely instructed her about the sanctity of life from conception to death without a translator.

Pelosi spun for the news services that she praised him for the church's help in poverty, "Global warming" etc and showed him photos of her family's previous visits to Rome:

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."

Perhaps his not granting her the Pope-Pelosi photo ala Mother Teresa was the worst insult.

She should be worried about ex-communication. By her getting in his face like that and THEN, misrepresenting the real content of the meeting to the press, she might be in "more serious difficulties" than she previously thought.

Benedict XVI might be polite but he can never be accused of being weak kneed or stupid and Ms Pelosi may well find herself ex-communicated if she does not change her ways.

One might ask why she would care, but if she loses the support of the Catholic vote (and it may bring some of the Evangelical Christians with it) she may lose her job in Congress i.e. be voted out. That she DOES care about... :)

SOURCES: (Zenit)Pope Benedict rebukes Pelosi over abortion

(CNA)Nancy Pelosi tries to spin meeting with Pope Benedict

the Media and Pope Benedict XVI

2009-02-10T11:44:00.000-08:00

I guess we cannot expect the media to report accurately about the Catholic church since they are basically very anti Catholic. Problem being, of course, that few people realize how much the media lies. (Ironically, they question the Bible but believe the media like Scripture).

Recent stories included one about Pope Benedict XVI lifting the ex-communication from 4 schismatic Bishops, one of whom is a "holocaust denier". The media reported that (especially about the holocaust denier) with glee - it made front page news. They added that the Jewish Community was shocked and upset at this action and intimated that the Bishops had been restored to the status of full Bishops.

But as usual, only part of the story was reported.

First of all, the formerly exCommunicated Bishops do NOT have any Bishop duties or even priestly facilities (meaning they cannot celebrate Mass, do confession etc). They simply now, can receive Communion when they go to church (and also can go to Confession). This is merely the start of a long dialog between the Pope and these Bishops which may or may not end up in reinstating them as priests or Bishops.

Secondly, with reference to the Holocaust denier Bishop, the Pope and the Vatican has given him an ultimatum that if he doesn't PUBLICALLY recant those beliefs, he will be exCommunicated again.

But of course, the above was NOT reported in the media which is still buzzing about how anti Semitic this pope is.

When Pope Benedict visited the USA last time (when he went to see President Bush), he also visited a large Synagogue in Washington and gave the Rabbi there, a gift of an ancient manuscript of the Torah. This was taken from the Vatican collection and is worth so much, it's basically priceless. The Rabbi, in receiving the gift, was totally shocked... his mouth literally fell open at the generosity of this gift.

And of course, not a word about it in the mass media. I only know about it because the Pope's trip was totally covered on EWTN (the Global Catholic Network) and I saw it happen.

And in the "Vatican Section" of Youtube.com they have several speeches the Pope made, visits to Holocaust memorials and more.

Bottom line, if the media says it, it's either wrong or incomplete and very different from the real story.

250,000 people gather in Wash. but no one noticed

2009-01-22T23:14:00.000-08:00

When can there be a gathering of 250,000 people in the nation's capital and yet, much of the country was unaware of it?

Jan 22, only two days after Mr Obama told us all he wanted to be the president of ALL the people, not just liberals, when thousands of rather upset people marched right in front of the White House to the Supreme Court building protesting the millions of unborn children killed each year in abortion.

I looked on the news sources - there was an item about it. Just a short associated press article, among the links of lessor stories if you looked for it. That's all. I would bet the average American wasn't even aware the march happened. And C-span which used to CARRY the march, now had a plethora of other activities in Washington like Pelosi's press conference about the economic bailout which apparently went on, oblivious to the emotional crowd right outside their doors.

Women carrying signs "I regret my abortion", young people - a lot of young people. Priests. Rabbis. And African Americans who were lamenting that abortion is effecting a deadly type of genocide on their race.

All begging Mr Obama to please listen to them. But Mr Obama was no where in view and as far as we know, still would advocate that if his daughter had an unplanned pregnancy that she should go to an abortionist and have his grandchild killed so she wouldn't be "punished with a baby".

It's scary to stand up against the abortion industry because it's a billion dollar industry and because you are standing up to Satan himself but one thing everyone forgets - Satan is just a fallen angel but God is very pro life (since He planned each one of those babies before the beginning of the world so it states in the Bible) and if we DO stand up against the abortion industry, we will have God at our side.

Which means we need to pray a LOT.

To that end, I am starting a new thing. I will fast (in the way we used to for "ember days" i.e. in a healthy manner) on Weds and Fridays, offering it up for life and I will try and say a Rosary every day. I hope some of the readers here will join me because we really need God's help to stop the killing.

In the time you took to read this blog, 9 babies will killed in abortion.

Here I am, holding my greatgranddaughter, born in an unplanned pregnancy. Do I look like I'm being "punished"? How far the world has gotten away from a sane point of view!

Abortion and Breast Cancer - the medical evidence

2009-01-08T10:09:00.000-08:00

This is a photo of my granddaughter. In a touching moment, she needed a hug and went to her daughter to get it - she picked her up while the baby was sleeping and hugged her. This was an unplanned pregnancy and she is only 17 years old. It is so clear to everyone around what a blessing this tiny baby has already been - not only to all of us but to her young mother as well.

She is breast feeding so cutting her risks for breast cancer but if she had, as too much of society thinks, terminated this small life, she would be high risk for breast cancer.

Following is one of the most important articles you will read this year. It not only documents the connection between Komen and Planned Parenthood but also the MEDICAL EVIDENCE for the strong link between abortion and breast cancer and provides the sources to read about the physiology of this and more. Please share the following with your friends, your cybergroups,... or link to this blog. Knowledge is not only power - in this case, it may well save a life as 80,000 women die from breast cancer yearly and abortion is one of the most preventable CAUSES of breast cancer.

----- Original Message -----

From: Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Dear Friends: A new article by Alisa Harris in World Magazine discusses the relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood. Her story includes misinformation and omissions about the abortion-breast cancer link for the magazine's Christian readers. Following this message, you will find my open letter to the editor of World Magazine. In that letter, I wrote: "I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent."

ACTION ITEM: Write or call the magazine to request a correction. Letters to the editor: Email: mailbag@worldmag.com Phone: 828-232-5415 Fax: 828-253-1556

Sincerely, Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES "An Open Letter to World Magazine" By Karen Malec, president, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Re: "Life or death?

ABORTION PRESENT: Group that fights breast cancer maintains troubling ties to Planned Parenthood," By Alisa Harris, January 17, 2008. Available at: article - group that fights breast cancer retains troubling link to Planned Parenthood

Dear editor: A new article in World Magazine discussed the disturbing financial relationship between the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and an organization that is the primary cause of the breast cancer epidemic in the U.S. - Planned Parenthood.

The author, Alisa Harris, correctly reported that basic medical textbooks acknowledge that full term pregnancies offer women a considerable reduction in breast cancer risk. Logically, that means that the woman who chooses not to have a baby (i.e. by having an abortion) has a higher breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby. The loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy is the first of three ways that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk (known as the "ABC link"). Harris' story, however, included inaccuracies and omitted important facts.

Eight medical organizations acknowledge that abortion further raises a woman's risk (independently of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing) by leaving her breasts with more places for cancer to start. [1] I am troubled that Harris left her readers in doubt about the existence of the independent link. She said Komen's officials dispute the independent link because: "In 2003, 100 experts from the National Cancer Institute concluded there was no link between breast cancer and either miscarriages or induced abortions. Harvard University and Oxford University have found similar results in the past two years." If Harris would read the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) workshop conclusions, she would find that the federal agency acknowledged the protective effect of a full term pregnancy, but then blatantly contradicted itself by denying an ABC link.

Research shows that abortions raise risk, but most miscarriages do not raise risk.

The NCI throws up fairy dust and confuses the public by mixing up these effects. More about that later. It is disheartening that Harris did not inform her Christian readers about a shocking quote from Dr. Leslie Bernstein, a lead moderator at the NCI's workshop (which has been called a "political sham"). The quote reveals Bernstein's motivation for concealing the ABC link from the public.

After the workshop, she told a journalist at CancerPage.com that an early first full term pregnancy (before age 24) provides women with the best way to prevent the disease, but Bernstein doesn't want women to know about it. She said: "The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are...There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk. "I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument." (Available at: http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id+5601)

Bernstein's abandonment of fundamental ethical principles is not uncommon among scientists today whose own textbooks encourage them to become activists. (For example, see: Understanding the Fundamentals of Epidemiology: An Evolving Text by Victor J. Schoenbach, Ph.D. and Wayne D. Rosamond, Ph.D. Available at ) The journal Nature published an article, "Scientists behaving badly," in 2005 showing that in an anonymous survey of several thousand career scientists who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an astounding percentage admitted to participating in the most egregious misbehaviours. [2] For instance, 15.5% were willing to admit they had "changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source" (that would be the NIH) within the previous three years. When scientists become unethical, they can do great harm to the dignity of mankind.

The biological reason for the ABC link is extremely compelling, but Harris' article (and even Komen whose mission is to "eradicate breast cancer") omits any discussion of it. Even the most virulently pro-abortion scientists - who (appallingly) testify as expert witnesses for abortion providers in lawsuits challenging state parental notice and consent laws that protect minors from predatory abortion industry practices - have never attempted to refute the biological reason for the ABC link because it is physiologically correct.

Harris, furthermore, inaccurately quoted New Jersey breast cancer surgeon Angela Lanfranchi. Harris wrote: "But Lanfranchi would add that abortions, both spontaneous and induced, create cancer-vulnerable breast tissue...." Lanfranchi's medical journal articles make it abundantly clear that most miscarriages do not raise risk, but abortions do raise risk. [3,4] Most miscarriages are abnormal first trimester pregnancies with low hormonal levels that are insufficient to maintain those pregnancies, but most abortions are normal pregnancies with elevated hormonal levels. Studies have demonstrated that doctors can predict when a woman will have a miscarriage by drawing her blood and measuring hormonal levels.

The ABC link is about cancer-susceptible breast lobules being overexposed to the hormone estrogen, which is known to be a cancer-causing agent. Most of the lobules in a childless woman's breasts consist of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. That is where 95% of all cancers originate. During a normal pregnancy, estrogen causes breast growth by stimulating the lobules to multiply, so the woman who has the abortion is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start (the independent link).

However, the woman who has a full term pregnancy experiences a protective process during the last months of pregnancy known as "differentiation," which by the time of delivery, matures 85% of her lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. That explains the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. There is strong biological support for the independent link in other related scientific evidence. Similar biological events should have similar results.

Several studies have found that a premature birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy increases breast cancer risk. [5,6,7,8] Why? For the same biological reasons explained above. The mother experiences the same hormonal influence on her breasts as the one who has an abortion. She, too, is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start. Scientists do not challenge the evidence supporting a link between premature birth before 32 weeks gestation and breast cancer, but they disingenuously challenge any findings that implicate their beloved surgical procedure - abortion - as an independent link for the disease. Komen (and other cancer groups) does not reveal this uncomfortable truth to its supporters either.

A Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997, found a 3% increase in risk for every week of pregnancy that passed before an abortion took place. [9] The biological explanation is very simple. The longer the mother is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the longer she is overexposed to estrogen, and the greater the number of cancer-vulnerable lobules that her breasts grow. Importantly, the Institute of Medicine recognizes abortion as an "immutable medical risk factor for premature birth." [10] The Stop Cancer Coalition in Vancouver reports that some 100 studies support that link.

Therefore, it can be concluded that abortion can cause a woman to have a premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy and - if she gives birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy - it puts her at risk for breast cancer (not to mention the fact that her premature child is at risk for cerebral palsy and other serious conditions). Harris' article omitted other important facts. The overwhelming majority of epidemiological studies report risk increases for women who have had abortions.

One study in 2007 found abortion to be the "best predictor of breast cancer" for eight European nations. [11] Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary, proved that he could predict future breast cancer rates for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates. The British insurance magazine, The Actuary, reported his findings in November of 2007 [12]; and the Royal Statistical Society sponsored a panel discussion of it last year.

Strangely, Komen (and other cancer groups supposedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer) does not talk about that study either, not even during Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As for the studies by Oxford and Harvard researchers that Komen likes to use to deny an ABC link, women have a right to know that these studies have been criticized in medical journals for having serious flaws. [13,14] The Oxford study received criticism from four researchers (independently of one another) in five separate medical journals. [15,16,17,18] That fact doesn't seem to faze Komen's officials.

The Harvard study received criticism for violating a basic scientific principle of allowing sufficient time to pass after an abortion before following-up to see how many subjects in the study have developed breast cancer. [19] A minimum follow-up time of eight to ten years is considered ideal. According to Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, opponents of the ABC link are fond of incorporating a lack of follow-up time in the prospective studies that they use to deny an independent link. [19]

In 2005, Brind reviewed 10 prospective studies that abortion zealots use to deny the independent link (including the Oxford study). [20] He concluded that they are severely flawed and cannot be used to deny the much larger body of studies that support that link. Although the journal that published Brind's review has no time limit for critics to send letters proving Brind was wrong, no one has ever challenged his conclusions.

I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent.

There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood causes more women to develop breast cancer through its sales of cancer-causing hormonal contraceptives/abortifacients. The World Health Organization assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives ("the pill") and combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) the highest level of carcinogenicity - Group 1 - in 2006. [21,22] Both contain the same type of drugs - estrogen + progestin.

In the case of combined oral contraceptives (drugs which can be delivered through the pill, IUD, injection, vaginal ring or transdermal patch), exposure often takes place during the most cancer-vulnerable time of a woman's life - before first full term pregnancy when nearly all of her breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Recognition of a breast cancer risk involving either use of the pill or HRT containing estrogen and progestin also provides additional biological support for an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. The biological basis is the same. It's about cancer-vulnerable breast lobules being overexposed to estrogen while in the presence of progesterone.

According to a 2008 report from STOPP International, Komen gave Planned Parenthood $711,485 between April 2005 and April 2006. [23] Is it reasonable for Komen to entrust Planned Parenthood with the important job of breast cancer screening, even when there are so many legitimate organizations that already carry out this function? Certainly, not!

It is as scandalous and offensive as if the American Lung Association had entrusted the tobacco company, Philip Morris, with funds to screen its customers for lung cancer! Komen's former Latina adviser, Eve Sanchez Silver points out that Planned Parenthood does not even serve the right demographic for breast cancer screening. Planned Parenthood's customers are young people. Breast cancer occurs most often in women 50+ years old.

In conclusion, I ask World Magazine to correct Harris' misinformation. Sincerely,
Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

References:

1. For a list of the medical organizations recognizing the independent link, see: List of medical orgs recognizing abortion- cancer link

2. Martinson B, Anderson M, de Vries R. Commentary: Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435.

3. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at: Science and study of abortion - breast cancer link

4. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. Lanfranchi - physiology of abortion and breast cancer

5. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

6. Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353-1239.

7. Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.

8. Innes K and Byers T. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. Int J Cancer 2004; 112:306-311.

9. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

10. Richard E. Behrman, Adrienne Stith Butler, Editors. Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. Institute of Medicine. Appendix B, Table 5, p. 519. Available at: Institute of Medicine.

11. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf.

12. Carroll P. The Breast Cancer Epidemic. The Actuary (November 2007) p. 30-31. Available at: http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/pdfs/07_11_30-31.pdf.

13. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16.

14. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch Int Med 167:814-820.

15. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf.

16. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at: http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF.

17. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.

18. Furton E. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 1-2.

19. Brind J. Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39.

20. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf.

21. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

22. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html.

23. Baggot, M. "Report Reveals Komen Gave Over $700 Thousand to Planned Parenthood in One Year / STOPP calls for end to Komen funding," LifeSiteNews.com, April 10, 2008. Available at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041002.html

##### The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133 Hoffman Estates, IL 60195

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/090107.htm

Pro life activism

2009-01-01T00:59:00.000-08:00

I have entered a new phase in pro life activism. No marches, no internet petitions (those are just harvesting names, addresses and phone numbers anyway). I cannot depend on "organizations" so no more paying salaries of the numerous employees of these organizations.
What if, I think, each and every one of us, started OUR OWN activism with a focus of educating the public - we start with those around us.

For example, how many priests and clergy persons do we hear instructing people about abortion? Almost none.

This morning at church, one of the Jesuits preached on the Holy Family and how society was discouraging the family unit. Perfect time to bring up abortion because this is one of the most DESTRUCTIVE forces in our society today - not only of millions of unborn infants but also of the family unit.

I kept waiting for him to bring it up. He never did. So after church, I confronted him. He came up with a lot of excuses, everyone of which I countered (they were LAME excuses - the underlying reason was he didn't have the courage to talk about it). "How can people learn about abortion when the priests never preach about it?" and he answered with "well, here we are preaching to the choir" and I said "No we are not preaching to the choir because many people here do not know how important an issue abortion IS!" I reminded him that every minute, 9 babies die from abortion and he winced.

He ended up getting annoyed with me and saying that he "couldn't deal with that now because he was drained after doing Mass".

So was my activism a failure? No, not at all. The hopeful sign was that he WAS ANNOYED which means it will come back to mind later which hopefully is an opening for the Holy Spirit to speak to him. He DID admit that he THOUGHT of mentioning abortion (i.e. the Holy Spirit has already nudged him) but decided against it.

"I planted the seed," I told God after our encounter, "and now it's up to You to water that seed."

Every one of us CAN be activist and SHOULD be activist. We can no longer depend on the "orgs" to "take care of it" while we go on living our lives, attending our parties, buying our commodities and ignoring the need. Now it is we who need to go out to the public, starting with those in OUR lives, talking the pro life story. So that the "choice" to be offered by our administration will mean nothing because no one will choose it.

Now, it's our only chance to make the killing stop.

Conservatives let's give the guy a chance

2008-12-02T11:43:00.000-08:00

OK, I will probably get myself ridden out on a rail for this post but I feel it's time to stop whining. Obama is the person who was chosen by our country for president. I didn't vote for him
because his stand on abortion is horrendous. But OUR country voted for him and maybe we ought to support him. And not blame him for all the gains which have NOT been made against abortion in the past 35 years.

ANYONE who runs for president has got to love the country because it's a horribly hard job, which is not that well paying and tends to be thankless when whomever is our president turns out to not be a godlike figure who fixes everything in 3 days or less.

Anyway, Obama's our president now and I think we need to remember that we are AMERICANS FIRST and Conservatives or Republicans second.

So I joined his website. I wanted to hear the news from the horse's mouth so to speak.

And today, they sent out an official announcement of his appointments which I felt was rather impressive.

First of all, he's doing something, as far as I know, is pretty unprecedented... he's RETAINING one of the Bush cabinet members, the secy of Defense. I don't know about you, but I think this is a real show of good faith and also of reaching OUT to conservatives and saying "Hey, I'm YOUR pres also!"

Secondly, he appointed Janet Napolitano as the head of homeland security. Naturally, being from her state, I'm happy to see that this puts Jan Brewer in the governor spot... she's a Conservative, Republican and pro lifer also. But I have to say that this is a good appointment for Homeland Security because while she was governor, Janet was very passionate about Homeland Security. She's an intelligent person and I think she'll be good in that office. (and far away from any life issues also...) :)

And finally, he appointed General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret), former Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander of the United States European Command, as National Security Advisor. Wow, truly Pres Obama doesn't know much about the military but this shows he is getting folks as advisors who ARE experts... I don't know this man but he sounds impressive and I think will be a good advisor...

Bottom line, Pres Obama may disagree with us on some issues, some of which folks like myself, are passionate about (like abortion... that's been the big thing with me for many years and it will continue thusly) but he is a human being, he is a fellow brother and he is a fellow American and I think we should approach this all with Christian love.

Let's give the guy a chance. So far, I'm quite impressed with his appointments... he's a hard worker, he's very intelligent and he actually might be a very good president.... and you know, sometime along the line, he COULD change his views on abortion... who knows...

As for the pro life movement? Well, it's obvious that whatever we've been doing for 35 years, hasn't worked. Because MOST of the small gains we have made are about to be wiped out. It may be time to re-think our strategy (something which many in the movement seem to not be willing to do). Mostly in the weeks since the pro life cause was horribly defeated in the national election, most folks in the movement, are just going on as usual when we all should perhaps be considering a change in direction.

Go back to Fatima. What did the Blessed Mother tell the children (and us)? PRAY THE ROSARY EVERY DAY. How did we manage to close a couple of clinics here? Going there and praying the Rosary in front of them.

Kind of a no brainer, now that I look at it. So why didn't I DO that in the first place... because you know, it was EASIER for me to work in the Pro life offices, march in the marches and work a booth at the fair than to commit to a daily Rosary but maybe that's just WHY the daily Rosary might WORK better....

Many years ago, a lady friend told me that prayer was the most important element of activism. "You know Sue," she said in her soft spoken southern accented voice, "Only God can change hearts!"

Disillusioned with people

2008-11-28T09:22:00.000-08:00

I find, in these tense days after the election, I am disillusioned with people in general. I don't MEAN to be - I just _am_.

Somehow the church was lame during the election and did NOT specify details on HOW to distinguish between non negotibles so no wonder many Catholics had a tough time.

For example, the Republican views on "immigration" which seem to be focused on poverty stricken Mexicans who have for decades, come here, worked for slave wages, enabling places like Walmart to offer things for cheap or farmers to farm without losing their shirts, are now, suddenly treated like criminals and un ceremoniously deported back to Mexico. When they have done nothing wrong, when they are PART of our economy and when, in many cases LIKE those who work for Walmart, they are paying income taxes (because it's automatically deducted from their paycheck but of course, they cannot be re-embursed at income tax time). The government knows that they are paying income taxes because there is a sizable amount of undocumented tax money which remains unclaimed. These are simple people, family people and church going and now being treated like criminals? Sounds like racism to me (because the Canadians are NOT being treated in such a shabby manner and we are NOT spending millions to build walls on the Canadian border) and racism is one of the five non negotibles that Catholics are asked to consider when voting. (Abortion is another).

I don't have a clue how "immigration" got started but it seems to be vaguely connected with 9/11 ...except the guys who "did" 9/11 were in the USA on green cards so would have NOT qualified as "undocumented" or "illegal". When I ask anyone about this, all I get is "well, drugs come in from Mexico". They come in from Canada also though and the simple people being treated like criminals are NOT the ones transporting the drugs. When I bring this up, no one has an answer. Which is one thing that totally disillusions me. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE EVEN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?

My Mexican neighbors are confused .... and if anyone bothered to learn Spanish (it's a beautiful language and knowing it enriches us!) so they could TALK to Mexicans, they would see for themselves. They are asking "what did we do? Why are my friends and family members being suddenly treated like criminals? Everyone is afraid now." How sad is this? In a country which boasts "give me your tired and your poor." Apparently that suddenly doesn't include Mexicans, I guess.

The Democrats have a much better stand on "immigration" with granting amnesty but a horrendous stand on abortion. The Republicans have a great stand on abortion but a horrendous stand on immigration. Where do you draw the line? I don't think it would have been "political" for the church to detail that to their people. I drew the line because abortion is killing 9 humans a minute and whereby "immigration" racism kills a few people, it isn't close to 9 humans a minute. The Mexican Americans voted Democratic because they are tired of living in fear. Can't really blame them.

Why do we have to make this choice? Why are ANY OF THE PARTIES REALLY MORAL in ALL their stands? (well I know the Democrats get millions of bucks from the abortion industry but why are the Republicans so blind about "immigration").

Then there was the story on "The Today Show" about the women priests. They interviewed a woman attorney who said how she had been a "good Catholic" for all these years (like she was doing THE CHURCH a favor) and tried to change the church's stand on ordination of women for all those years and finally got tired of it so she was "ordained" as a "priest" or priest-ESS or whatever she calls herself.

And now, she "celebrates Mass" and disrespects the Lord by not only dressing like a priest but by serving Communion to her followers (so she's misleading others). She doesn't give a hang that what she's telling them is Sacrament IS NOT or how she's misleading others down HER primrose path and denying THEM the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus. I mean if you think of it... HOW DARE SHE disrespect God like that? She reminds me of a passage in Timothy which talks about this very type of thing:

But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power.
(2 timothy 3:1 ff)

And what happened to HER CHANGING (instead of changing the church according to HER EGO). Just where did we forget that EGO means "EASING GOD OUT"?

Besides her misleading what looked like 100 or more people into coming to her blasphemous Mass, the "Today Show" LOVED it! Another chance to laugh at the Catholic church and how stupid we are for having only male priests. Nevermind that JESUS never ordained his Mother. Is this attorney so foolish as to think that IF Jesus wanted women priests, His Immaculately Conceived Mother would have been the first to be ordained?

To those idiots who want women priests and say the church is unfair, I ask them "Well, maybe you can answer this - God must also be unfair because you know He only allows WOMEN to be Mothers so why is that?"

Of course in our immoral depraved age, motherhood is not respected but actually, I consider it on an equal basis, RESPECT-WISE as being a priest because in being a mother you are allowed to partake in God's Creation of a new life and also, you have a special closeness to children AND Grandchildren which men do not have. God and His Church are NOT unfair. We each have our incredibly awesome things we can do. We women can be mothers and men can be priests. Why should men OR women have it all?

You see, if people bothered to PRAY or to just RESPECT GOD and His church, all of this would be a real no brainer and they wouldn't even waste time worrying about how women cannot be priests and men cannot be mothers.

(In a speech on youtube, Ms Via states that she was so religious from childhood and also aware of the "injustice toward women". Amazing how she forgets that the most highly thought of individual human in the Catholic church next to Jesus, is Jesus' Mother, A WOMAN. When I listened to this speech (all 58 minutes of it), it truly amazed me that she's a PhD and she knows so little. No wonder our son - also a PhD - reminds me that especially in the case of folks like her, PhD can mean "Piled higher and deeper" Rather interesting are what she calls "radicalizing events", those which led her out of "being a good Catholic" as she described herself to being ordained and having her own parish. One of which was when she went for her tenure at the Catholic University where she taught, she did not pass the test for "Catholicity" and was asked to leave. Wow, I wonder why? Because she doesn't know what the Catholic church teaches? And the second "Radicalizing event", she tells us, is that she was barred from teaching in a Catholic University by the Bishop when she signed an ad - from "Catholics for a free choice" which stated that abortion was a "moral choice" at times. (It should be noted the "Catholics for a free choice" are neither Catholic NOR into free choice because the only choice THEY believe in, is abortion and they are funded by the abortion industry also. The 129 member organization has a president who makes over 60,000 a year!) Needless to say, I definitely suspect Ms Via's elevator doesn't go to the top floor so to speak, but I think that the Bishops should warn people against individuals like this because they can be confusing if folks do not know any better! I could write a whole blog on HER. Maybe I will.... in the future. By the way, Jane Via, if you do read this, I, as a member of several "IQ" groups, would have to say that one would greatly suspect your brain is somewhat lacking since you have managed to do all this studying and have very little knowledge of Catholic doctrine OR Catholic History. Also be warned that you may be playing with your eternal salvation in order to massage your Ego here on earth. Is it really worth taking those type of risks, Jane? "He whose soul is flat, the sky will cave in on them by and by" Edna St Vincent Millay)

Which brings me to the third group I am disillusioned with and that is the person in the pew. Because the most awful pro abortion people (who are ALREADY WORKING TO UNDO 35 years of work on the part of the pro life movement as we speak) have been elected to office and you know, few seem to care. People are just going about their daily life, worrying about what they are going to buy for their next purchase or what they are going to wear to the next "occasion". While these evil people are opening the door for abortions to exponentially multiply.

Do they think abortions WON'T multiply? Look at Russia which encouraged abortion for many decades and now find themselves as a dying society. The average woman in Russia has had NINE abortions and now that the floodgates were opened a few decades ago, the government is actually trying to STOP the flow of baby killing but finding it very difficult to do.

But no one is even upset about it. The pro life movement has gone into immediate denial mode. "Donate more money" say the emails and letters "so we can continue our good fight" and "we have made a lot of progress and will continue to do so" despite the fact that every last bit of progress they have made is quickly being undone.

I have been told "don't be too hard on the prolife movement" and basically that I'm full of it when I'm understandably alarmed and dismayed.

I feel like I am standing alone. My constant prayer as the darkness is rapidly closing in, seems to be "Holy Spirit, please push the darkness away". I got that from Fr Spitzer on EWTN and it helps. So does the Rosary. But what is very upsetting is that so few seem to see the darkness.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. 2 tim 4:3-4

As the saying goes: "you don't have to be a cannibal to be fed up with people".

Love MUST be a choice!

2008-11-23T01:40:00.000-08:00

I have received via the internet (and seen on TV actually), two stories which are supposed to be inspirational and/or inspire guilt or I'm not sure.

One story is of a man who is the person who raises and lowers a bridge so the trains can cross. One day he takes his son (who is about 5 years old) to work with him. As the father is occupied and the bridge is up to allow a boat to pass, the son climbs down in the underside of the bridge. Then a train comes. The father looks for the son and notices that where the son is, if he lowers the bridge, the son will get crushed. He calls to the son but the child does not hear him. He must now make the agonizing decision of saving his son (by not lowering the bridge) or killing his son by lowering the bridge to save the hundreds of people on the train. He decides in favor of the people on the train and lowers the bridge.

In the second story which I just received, it's the same principle only this time, a father is told his young son has the only pure blood with which they can make a vaccine to cure thousands of people. Ignoring the questionable medical basis of this one - vaccines are generally NOT made from human blood - the bottom line is the same as the first story. The father "donates" the son (after lying to the son and saying he would not allow anything to happen to him) and the son dies and the doctors say basically (though not so bluntly) "oops, we didn't know it would take so MUCH of his blood".

The analogy is supposed to be God the father, giving His Son to die for us. In each story, the apathy of the people who are saved is commented on. "Didn't you know I killed my son to save you?"

If we think about each story, at least, this was MY reaction, it's troubling. Could WE make that decision? To destroy our own kid to supposedly save other lives? I doubt that any of us could do this. So it ends up being a dilemma rather than something which is uplifting. (at least to me).

I have been troubled by these stories every time I've heard them or seen it passed on the internet and recently, realized WHY I've found the story so confusing and so troubling and not really LIKE the sacrifice that Jesus made.

Because there are some things which are very different here and perhaps not religious at all.

First of all, the underlying idea is that by the death of a small innocent, lives can be saved which is not really that far away from the idea of abortion or murder or embryonic stem cell research etc. Certainly NOT a religious idea at all. Quite the contrary.

But secondly, what is REALLY wrong with these stories is that we are being compared to God the Father which is totally inappropriate. We are not God, we are human and God is not us - He is NOT human but infinite. And our creator.

And finally, in the story, the small child has no choice in the matter. In the first, no choice at all - the father makes the choice and in the second, choice based on the idea that it will NOT kill him, the child and choice at an age where free will is not developed yet - hardly more of a choice than in the first story.

I don't know if anyone really, if they think about it, finds these stories inspirational. I know they are often told as inspirational stories.

But these are so different from Jesus. Jesus, unlike God his Father, was/is man as much as He is God. And God did NOT make this choice FOR HIM. God ASKED Him to make the choice of allowing Himself to be sacrificed for the salvation of mankind and He could have said "no" just as any one of us has the free will to say "no". But Jesus, at the age of 33, did NOT say "no". He said "yes". Of His own free will. And that is what is so beautiful because Jesus loved us THAT much as to, though not really wanting to suffer that much, telling the Father that if He "must drink this cup then so be it".

And interestingly enough if we wish to look for analogies, there are many and even a couple in the 20th century... i.e. individual humans who had a choice to make a sacrifice and said "yes" to God much as Jesus did.

One of them was Gianna Beretta Molla, a pediatrician who, if she followed the line of the stories above, would have sacrificed her unborn baby in abortion so she could live and save many lives (as she did in her job as a pedriatrician) as well as be mother to her other 3 children. But instead of following the two above stories and sacrificing her unborn child (when she was found to have cancer of the uterus and require treatment to live), she said "take the child first - save my child".

And the child was born (Gianna just had the tumor removed) and they named the little girl, Gianna, after her mother. Gianna the mom, died a week later but to the end had no regrets.

On the morning of 21 April 1962 Gianna Emanuela was born by Caesarian section. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of 28 April, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of "Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you", the mother died of septic peritonitis. She was 39 years old.

Like Jesus whom she followed, she said yes to sacrificing HERSELF and although one might say, this was hardship on her children and husband (and it likely was), these children and certainly Gianna the daughter (who later became a pediatrician like her mother and has saved many lives) would say, could a mother love any more than this? (not withstanding that many of us believe Gianna is in Heaven praying for all of us - she was proclaimed saint by the Catholic church a few years ago).

I think it is really important to make this distinction and to clarify these confusing stories which compare US to God the Father.

Sacrificing someone ELSE's life (without THEIR choice being involved) not only does not necessarily save anyone but is a decision God would NOT ask us to make in the framework of the scenarios given in the stories and even in the Bible when Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son, God stops him. A pretty clear message.

But sacrificing OUR OWN lives is another story. Perhaps for some of us, that might be the ultimate act of love, to follow our Savior in His Choice to do this. And for many of us, to read about this IS a great source of inspiration.

What did Gianna the daughter (pictured here with her father and Pope John Paul II) feel about this sacrifice that her mother made to save her life? Here is what she wrote when a church dedicated a stain glass window to a rendering of her mother:

I am very honoured and moved to be here today with all of you and I thank Fr. Thomas Rosica with all my heart, and his staff, the parishioners and friends of the Newman Centre who are present at this important ceremony. Three days ago, when Padre Tom showed me the church windows for the first time and I saw my mother smiling, I was filled with joy and so pleased, because I have always imagined her in this way, knowing that the message of her life couldn’t be represented better.

Every moment of her entire existence was a real testimony of Christian love and faith, lived concretely and with joy in everyday life: as a young girl, as a fiancée and wife, as a mother and doctor. She always trusted in Divine Providence and she has crowned her exemplary life in the name of a love without measure. She is always with me and since the momentous day of April 24, 1994, I have felt myself to be part of an ever growing family comprised of so many people throughout the world who, like me, pray to her, confide in her, and feel close to her. I believe that this is also the design of Divine Providence, that now I shall never be alone.

Dear Mom, I ask you to fill me and all those who suffer and are in difficulty with your own strength of soul, your hope, your courage to live life to the full. Protect and help all mothers, their families and all who turn to you and entrust their needs to you.

(Imagine praying to a saint who is your Mom!)

Gianna was born on April 21, 1962 which was Holy Saturday, that year and her mother died on April 28, 1962, the eve of what would become Divine Mercy Sunday a few years later. I was received into the Catholic church on April 11, 1963, Holy Thursday, the following year and I truly feel that Gianna's prayers had a lot to do with my OWN conversion...

St Gianna Molla is a saint ESPECIALLY for our times when the lives of children are thought to be so expendable or even sometimes as a way of thinking that destroying their lives can save others (as in the stories of the internet forwards).

Source links:

The story of Dr St Gianna Beretta Molla

Beautiful recounting of the St Gianna story and many photos

700 billion dollar bail-out - feeding the hungry would have been bettter use?

2008-11-12T11:25:00.000-08:00

A website sent to me by another member of an internet list, suggested that only a small part of the 700 billion dollar bailout, if applied to world hunger, would go a long way to solve the hunger problem. When I saw the title, the premise seemed totally not feasible to me and so, I did not bother clicking the link, much to the chagrin of the person who sent it as he obviously believed it. He commented that the website had led him to believe that the goal of conquering "world hunger" was at least, in sight.

However, evidence suggests that this goal is NOT AT ALL in sight and for many reasons. As one scholar I was listening to this am - Fr Mitch Pacwa, SJ, commented, a lot of world hunger is caused by bad governments including the fact that a goodly part of the AID sent them, never gets there and/or gets stopped by bureaucracy etc. Right now according to the mass media (which we KNOW is NOT friendly to the Catholic church to put it mildly), 80 percent of the world's hungry are being FED BY the Catholic church. And as we know, if a proposed solution to the "financial crisis" had a hard time getting through Congress, we can be assured that a proposal of even a part of that money to feed the hungry would CERTAINLY die in committee! :) The bottom line of the article was not, I suspect to seriously propose a solution to "world hunger" but rather to point out what a bad move, the 700 billion dollar bail-out was.

While I agree the 700 billion buck "bail-out" was a bad move (knee jerk moves are seldom advantageous), I will point out that such measures had been previously tried and were highly successful (for example in my state) although on a smaller scale AND everyone was confused about it and thought perhaps it might help (I interviewed a few individuals with expertise in both accounting -finance and the stock market, in my efforts to try and understand it myself).

Bush proposed it to Congress because he figured if he didn't save the day quickly, the election was surely lost but the measure was supported almost in totality by Congressional Democrats and only blocked by Conservative Republicans in Congress (why it didn't pass the first time around) who turned out to be correct about it not being a good idea. However, enough of them cracked on the second time around and the bill passed, succeeding to only further lubricate the mortgage companies rather than making much of a difference in the financial mess.

McCain, many GOPs thought later, should have supported the Republicans opposing the bill instead of making a big dramatic thing of "stopping his campaign", standing up whatever talk show he was scheduled on while taking an interview with Katy Couric two blocks away from the talk show location, a faux pas which many talk show hosts of course, had a field day with, on a nightly basis for some time after.

But of course, hindsight is 20/20 as we all know. At the time, everyone was panicky and so typically American, wanted a quick fix which they should know by now, really doesn't exist... beefing up the mortgage companies is NOT going to get most Americans to start living within their means which was one of the sources of the 'problem' in the first place. One news person opined that the media might have actually spiked the downward trend in the market because people "hearing" we were facing a so called "depression" sold stock in record numbers which is of course, what causes, at least in part, a dive in the market.

Our stock market has been far from stable for years and in the Clinton era while there was inflation and recession at the same time, some of the same problems existed even though the media did NOT report much on it -they don't during a Democratic regime since as high as 90 percent of media personnel describe themselves as "middle of the road" liberals but some estimates opine that 70 percent of media personnel are actually, far left liberals. (REF: Bernie Goldberg: BIAS, NY 2002 and Ann Coulter: HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL, NY, ? both of whom, have actually researched the number of stories in the mass media on several subjects during Clinton's term and during Bush's term and compared. Goldberg, who worked as a news anchor for CBS for 22 years, describes himself as a "middle of the road" liberal Democrat while Coulter is, of course, a far right Conservative but both agree on this subject.)

And there was a higher rate of unemployment during the Clinton years also... a steady 7.5 percent (as high as it STILL has not gotten lately). Last I heard it was 6.5 percent.

It should be pointed out that the unemployment rate may not be accurate as it is figured from those collecting unemployment insurance and that runs out in 6 months and people fall off the rolls whether they have obtained jobs or not.

Back in Clinton days, I was one of the unemployed (which is why I researched it) and knew several in my field, i.e. software design, a type of work which was more and more, being "outsourced", who had been out of work for far longer than 6 months. In fact, one gent I knew had lost his job in 1992 and never found another - he was 58 and "attritioned" from an aerospace company - had worked his way up to some sort of system administrator without a degree so when he was "promoted to the street", his credentials did not serve him well. He did not have the programming skills to take a job as a software developer on contract so he became a "house husband" (and rather depressed) while his wife, a nurse - RN, took over the duty of bringing home the income. I actually knew several like that. And none of this was EVER reported by the media UNTIL Bush came to office and then, of course, we heard stories on a daily basis about how bad the economy was.

But it was a no brainer that a bad economy does not happen suddenly in the span of a day between the outgoing Democratic president and the incoming Republican president. Well, I guess the media thought folks would buy it and angry liberals bought it in spades.

As an FYI, I was sure one of the advantages of a liberal Democrat being elected to president would be a returning to peace, because Conservatives are supposed to be, more sensible than liberals and also patriotic enough (how old fashioned) to SUPPORT the president in solidarity now that the election is over. (Fr Mitch, affore mentioned, defined solidarity as recognizing our mutual "human-ness" and while not accepting what we may feel to be immoral ideas, supporting the president on a HUMAN level and helping whenever we can).

I was wrong though because many Conservatives are whining as loud and unreasonably as liberals were doing, after Bushie got into office.

There are times I think the number of THINK-ing folks regardless of what their IQ scores were in school, is fastly dwindling to a handful and somehow, the concept of large numbers of humans with power and purposeful activity and a significant amount of anger and frustration, who do not THINK is more scary than any one politician's policies OR the 700 billion bucks we flushed down the toilet, borrowed from God-knows-where-I-don't-even-want-to-speculate.

Christians could have voted morally but they didn't

2008-11-05T00:20:00.000-08:00

Seems not enough Christians voted morally, their greed overcoming their moral compass at the sound of Obama's empty promises. We could have made a statement in this election. We could have pushed back the darkness but instead too many of us SUPPORTED the darkness. Just like those Christians who voted for Hitler, Castro and others.

Seems we never learn.

"He who does not study history is doomed to re-live it"

Not all change is good. Prepare for higher taxes and less money. No country has EVER taxed itself to economic security. And this country may NO LONGER HAVE the protection of God since we are killing 9 unborn babies per minute and we just elected a man for president who is joined at the hip with the evil Planned Parenthood, and financed by their blood monies to the tune of 10 million dollars and it seems, NOT ENOUGH OF US EVEN CARE.

Fr Corapi of EWTN said it well. "If you elect immoral politicians, you get what you deserve"

Obama needed the Catholic Vote to win. He got enough of it, it seems. Some polls were saying that 60 percent of Catholics were planning to vote for Obama.

Where did we fail? Was it the big "catholicvote.com" website which didn't really carry a strong message because the creators did not want to SELF FUND IT but instead insisted on asking for donations? Many Bishops spoke out but in the parish I attend, I did not hear ONE sermon advocating the importance, the morality of voting pro life. I suspect many other Catholics did not hear many pro life sermons also.

And now, Fr Pavone of priests for life has his BIG meeting for "strategy" now. What strategy? Get it Fr, Many Catholics don't care because they have NO MORAL COMPASS left. They cannot see past their pocketbooks. Do you really think that shouting over and over at the choir is going to do anything to stop abortion?

Fr writes on his website:

Americans have made a grave mistake in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Yet America herself remains great and is not a mistake, which is why so many of her citizens will continue, with even greater energy and determination, to defend her founding principles.

Defend our founding principles? We just flushed them down the toilet, Fr Pavone, by our choice at the polls.

The pro life movement, hate to say it, is WORTHLESS, WEAK, INEFFECTIVE. Too many in the movement have made that their job so that if abortion ever became illegal, they would lose their livelihoods. And in 35 years and 48 MILLION humans dead, the pro life movement has done little to change anything.

I remember an African American minister speaking at a HLI convention in the mid-90's saying that one of the reasons abortion still existed was "WICs" (Weak Ineffective Churches). And here it is 13 years later and his words are still ringing true.

Maybe we need to flush the pro life movement down the toilet with the principles we just flushed.

We don't need the pro life movement because it seems when it comes to REAL action, it's constipated. We don't need "new strategies" or more speeches to the choir. We don't need the emotional rallies, the marches or the rest. Probably all we need is A LOT of people praying the Rosary daily for the end to abortion and when the time comes, Catholics making a moral choice of a candidate who will build the "culture of life" and not promote the "culture of death". Of course that does not give anyone employment, or an emotional high or a "feel good" for little output, feeling. IT JUST WORKS.

I will hope and pray that God who can overcome all, will help those of us who DID vote morally.

At least we can live with our consciences.

obama pledges to appoint pro abortion judges

2008-10-19T09:17:00.000-07:00

The following videos are enlightening:

How Obama REALLY feels about abortion and babies:

"I've got 2 daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them family values but if they make a mistake, why should they be punished with a baby?" (from a speech to campaign followers) (Obama to campaign followers)

Also snippets of Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOwybS_fkQA

Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood that he would protect abortion "rights" and is shown speaking to a Planned Parenthood gathering. Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the USA has started their own campaign to the tune of 10 million dollars to get Obama elected. This video is rather eye opening to say the least.... Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger wrote prolifically that she believed in Eugenics i.e. abortion and birth control to "select out" poor people, minority races etc. One African American magazine years ago, said that since only 1 in 8 anglo babies is aborted but 1 in 4 African American babies is aborted, it is like a genocide - they gave me permission to reprint their whole magazine (I called the editor) in the early 1990's. So here is an African American who is supporting Planned Parenthood (Obama). Are they still racist? A student organization which did an undercover investigation found that the employees they talked to suggested that Planned Parenthood was still racist.

This video is from Fox News and they did their homework and present actual footage of Obama's speech to Planned Parenthood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N_wlOCZUpM

http://suewidemark.com/the-catholic-vote

Then and now....

2008-09-12T12:47:00.000-07:00

Someone on one my health groups posted an article by an alternet writer named James Levine. I guess it was considered health because it was talking mental health. The long article ranted against both the entire field of psychology as well as religionists and although it admitted we were not a healthy generation, offered no alternate means of treatment for the adjustment problems we are seeing in today's society.

Somehow the article struck a bad chord in me. Maybe it's the hot weather or the inane media election hype... or maybe I've just had my fill of ranting athestic articles which attempt (very poorly, I may add) to rip up all religion but offer no better alternative.

I ended up writing a somewhat passionate response to the article which is as follows:

A couple of comments:

1. The author's main premise is that all psychology is no better than a placebo at treating mental illness. I think it's simplistic to discard all psychological treatment as "no better than a placebo" and from my observations, very incorrect. I've had enough dealings in the field to observe that in some areas, although treatment certainly has room for improvement, they have made strides and also do have a certain number of success stories.

2. The author never defines what he means by "mental illness" or "insanity". To lump all mental illness into one pot is not only simplistic but really incorrect and leads me to really question whether the writer of this article is very ignorant or just not aware of modern science. Some of what we call "mental illness" (for example, bi polar, schizophrenia etc) has a large factor which is physical and thus responds well to medications.

3. Finally, Levine comments: "It is my experience that psychiatry, Scientology and fundamentalist religions are turnoffs for genuinely critical thinkers." This is not only ignorant and shows a real bias on the part of the author, it's incorrect. Without trying real hard, I can name many highly intelligent critical thinkers who are members of all religions INCLUDING the much maligned Scientology. And in considering the lack of knowledge obvious, in this article which TOTALLY IGNORS several CLINICAL STUDIES and disses the entire field of psychology, I would NOT include the author in any group of "critical thinkers" Critical, yes. Thinker, not.

Let's just take a look at the RESEARCH

1. Several MEDICAL STUDIES done by scientists (not religionists) have suggested that:

A. People prayed for after surgery tend to have a SIGNIFICANTLY better recuperation rate than those not prayed for (DESPITE the fact that in the several studies I've read, they were double blind i.e. none of the patients in the cohort knew if they were being prayed for or not).

B. Elizabeth Kubler Ross started her long series of research for her book "ON DEATH AND DYING" as an atheist and yet, after observing that down to the man/woman, people who had ANY TYPE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, dealt with death and illness WAY BETTER than people with NO religious belief, SHE HERSELF changed her atheistic position and became a believer in God.

C. Fulton Sheen, while a Catholic Bishop, has written some of the best researched books which are respected by religionist and non religionist alike... He wrote that when Catholics went to regular confession, almost none of them required any type of counseling.

NOTE: I am not suggesting everyone become a religionist but simply pointing out that people dissing religion with NO basis in fact, observation or research are highly suspect of just being plain ignorant... because there is a body of observational data available which suggests that religion seems to deliver definite benefits to its adherrants, enough data that it should be respected as a valid way of life, at the LEAST.

My own observations. I come from an era where religion was NOT forbidden in the schools and where praying was acceptable in all places. When I was in High School and abstinance before marriage was encouraged, there were a small percentage who were se/xually active but in my senior class of 980, only ONE became pregnant. She married the father, and began a large family. Only a handful were caught smoking dope. You could NOT obtain any type of party drugs on campus and hardly anyone used alcohol - alcohol was CERTAINLY NOT a regular thing at teen parties!

No one in our school committed suicide in the four years I was in high school. STD was pretty unheard of among teens and the most prevailent cause of death among teens was car accidents.

We had a "senior sermon" attended by all the students and presided over by clergyman from Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faiths. Witchcraft and that sort of thing was very looked down upon and abortion was the unthinkable - most girls feeling that killing an unborn baby in their womb was a most horrendous idea.

Compare to now... Suicide has been the most prevailent cause of teen death for several years now (ironically ever since O'Hare went to the supreme court and the court legislated from the bench against the even MENTIONING of God in the schools - never mind that the son she "fought for" became a fundamentalist Christian and had nothing more to do with his angry mother who was eventually murdered by one of her fellow atheists).

Abortion and teen pregnancy are common. STD is in epidemic in the high schools.

Physically, we are the one of the sickest societies in the first world DESPITE the fact we spend more on health care than most other countries. Breast cancer is an epidemic (kills 80,000 women a year) and that happened after the birth control pill, which had been suggested to CAUSE cancer as early as the 1930's with repeated results ON LINE in a Canadian study in 1960. Now 38 worldwide studies have suggested that abortion ALSO greatly raises the risk for breast cancer and one of those studies was a CLINICAL study by pro choice scientist Janet Daling whose results suggested that girls who have abortions before the age of 18 (by some figures 80 percent or higher of abortions) may have a 250 percent greater risk of breast cancer by the age of 40.

And the real epidemic is cancer (of all types) which KILLS (BY CDC STATISTICS) 550,500 people a year, with a close second by smoking (associated with 400,000 deaths) - more young people are smoking NOW than back in the 1960's when the ill health effects were unknown- and yet all we see in the dumbed down media is whining about obesity (by CDC statistics associated and WEAKLY SO) with 27,000 deaths a year.

Gee folks, seems atheism isn't even working to keep us PHYSICALLY healthy let alone MENTALLY healthy. hmmmm..... the facts speak WAY LOUDER than Mr Levine's opinions.

And maybe that's why the working folks (as Barry Obama put it) "bitterly cling to their religion and guns", despite how the media tries to manipulate their minds. In fact, despite the constant whining of media liberals and atheists, it seems that 85 percent of the American public clings to their religion. :)

Sources:
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/ (has several references to the 38 worldwide studies which suggest that abortion greatly raises the risk for breast cancer)

Medical research suggests power of prayer (reporting on 2 double blind, clinical studies which suggested that people prayed for experienced medical benefit even if they didn't KNOW they were being prayed for)

Many links on the synthetic estrogen - breast cancer connection (this page has many references to studies)

obesity actually kills less people than guns! an analysis of the CDC correction of the number of obesity deaths from 300,000 to 27,000

BTW, alternet has an interesting bias - on a page entitled sex are stories about "family orgasms" and how abstinance education doesn't work (yeah right... then why did several states push it after doing research on it...but - oh - we won't let a few facts confuse us). I would say it may NOT be a reliable source? maybe? :)

----- Original Message -----
Has American Society Gone Insane?
By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet
Posted on September 11, 2008, Printed on September 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/?story /97934/
For many Americans who gain their information solely from television, all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists, exemplified by Tom Cruise spewing at Matt Lauer, "You don't know the history of psychiatry. ... Matt, you're so glib." The mass media has been highly successful in convincing Americans to associate criticism of psychiatry with anti-drug zealots from the Church of Scientology, the lucrative invention of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

Democrats very scary

2008-09-01T14:03:00.000-07:00

I have listened to all the speeches given at the Democratic convention (the main players anyway).

The thing which strikes me is that several of them "speak with forked tongue". For example, Al Gore talked passionately about diminishing our reliance on "fossil fuels" (i.e. oil) however, he owns 3 jet planes! And several cars. He talked emotionally about solar power but despite the fact that he has plenty of bucks to build solar power into HIS palatial homes, he continues to rely (like the rest of us) on electricity.

Joe Biden was one of the more scary speakers for me. He had very recently spoken out about Obama not being qualified and yet his speech at the convention was ripping up both Bush AND McCain and speaking emphatically, like a Baptist preacher that Obama was the man we NEED. Working the audience much as some of the TV evangelists do. Biden has been asked by several bishops to not present himself for Communion in the Catholic church because of his pro abortion stand and yet, he continues to ignore this saying he's "personally pro life" (however has opposed most pro life legislation except the partial birth abortion ban which he apparently voted in favor of). He looks to me like a man who can be bought.

But Obama is the most interesting of all. His promises are extremely vague.... go after Bin Laden in Afganistan with "increased troops" (does that mean the return of the draft?), restore the "American dream" whatever that is. He tries to come on like he's a WORKING man but is nothing of the sort... attended a posh prep school in Hawaii, then Columbia and then, Harvard Law school. "he could have gone to Wall street" several speakers chanted, "but instead choose to help the poor people". Well, sort of. He organized a massive registration effort for Bill Clinton's campaign "earning himself a job in a Civil rights law firm". This suggests that neither Wall Street NOR a local law firm had been an option for him, until he got some name recognition going. After he got to the law firm, although he might have done some pro bono work, I'm sure the money for the majority of his cases, was quite liveable.

He talks about his mother raising two children by herself. Not quite true. According to a couple of sites, his mother who is caucasian and dad who was Kenyan, divorced when he was young and then, his mother married a caucasian Indonesian oil manager and moved the family to Indonesia but apparently Barack was soon returned to Hawaii where he was "mostly raised" by his Grandparents. His mother returned to Hawaii apparently several years later - she and second husband had a girl, Barack's half sister. So it's his grandparents who made the sacrifices but that's less dramatic than his picture of his single mother raising the kids by herself (even though she was likely not poor and definitely, was not single for several years).

Michelle Obama, a dynamic speaker, also tries to relate to the "poor people" but she graduated with a law degree from Harvard also and worked in a law firm where she was asked to mentor an intern. That intern was Barry who was described as "more interested in Michelle than corporate law". Again, it seems that she has had a prestigious career so when she said she lives for her kids, that's doubtful since her last position after being Dean at the U of Chicago was Vice President of Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Certainly the American dream of working one's way up but NOT in the blue collar manner and not the fulltime mother she gave the impression of being in her speech "My girls are the most important thing of my life" she said, "they are the first thought I think about in the morning" (and probably that's the LAST time she thinks about them until she gets home from her career job.

Bottom line- nothing poor about Obamas so would they really be able to relate to the 50 year old unemployed auto worker?

In observing Barack, it seems he was unable to give the stage to anyone else. After Michelle's speech, he burst into the convention on the Tron Screens via satellite and congratulated Michelle on her speech but mostly spoke to the audience.

After Biden's speech, Biden's wife came up and they made a dramatic show of kissing in front of everyone. Then, with a silly grin on her face, she said "we have a surprise guest" Biden didn't get it at first and ignored her so this was something he was not told about beforehand and she said again "we have a surprise guest" . As Biden was looking a bit confused, Obama hops out of the wings and takes over, telling the audience that HIS speech tomorrow would be in the stadium because he wanted EVERYONE who wanted to come, to be able to come.

There are a lot of things they DON'T talk about with Obama like how he PERSONALLY when in the Illinois state Senate, killed a bill which allowed for a baby born alive from a late term abortion to get medical care. "It would weaken Roe V Wade", he explained. NARAL loved it and so did Planned Parenthood to the tune of some rather hefty donations, I'm sure. For the Gore campaign, Planned Parenthood spent 5 million bucks to win over 5 swing states to Gore (and they succeeded). I'm sure they are NOT going to spend LESS on trying to get Obama in.

But think of it. A man who opposes a bill to give a poor infant, born alive after a late term abortion, medical care (effectually causing the murder of that infant) - can this be a person who really cares about ANY humanity (other than himself)? If people think so, they may be badly mistaken.

And on the GOP side, McCain, instead of doing the "politically correct" thing and choosing someone like Romney for his Vice President, he chose a woman who is not only pro life but courageously stands up for her beliefs (and she's already getting cut up in the press). He rose about 50 points in my estimation for that move. Sarah Paline is not only admirable but strong.

It's really getting to be like Armageddon - the evil (lying and misrepresentation and advocating the deaths of 1.5 million infants a year as the Democrat do, IS evil) against the good - McCain whose voting record is totally pro life and Sarah who is the first to run for a major office who bluntly and loudly stands up for her beliefs. Which will the American people choose. I hope they make the right choice.

The only Democrat, by the way, who made an intelligent and civilized speech was Bill Clinton and he rose in my estimation for doing so. He pushed the idea of change but he did NOT speak disrespectfully of Bush OR McCain.

Obama appeals to the dreamers but not realists

2008-05-21T02:49:00.000-07:00

I heard Barak Obama's speech to supporters after he lost the Kentucky primary (not surprising his loss - he's definitely 'the wrong color" for the Southern half of the USA).

His speech was well delivered and eloquent and promised almost a perfect world (should we elect HIM president). He delivered it with deep emotion, a zeal which was quickly picked up by his listeners who cheered him on.

Nice sounding as his speech and promises were, it all bore little resemblance to reality.

He promised tax cuts for the middle class and not "2 percent of the richest people" only the reality is that most folks got tax rebates this time around so it wasn't only the rich and I have direct evidence that at least some of the low income folks got the rebates because a friend of mine IS in that category and they got a rebate of only $300 bucks LESS than we did when they pay a fraction of the taxes we pay and also subscribe to several government help programs. Obama should research the "facts" he proclaims.

National Geographics has been showing several programs reflecting the on going research on "9/11". These programs directly conflict with those who wish to blame our present leaders for the terrorism. Seems Osama Bin Laden is a billionaire and has financed "terrorism cells" all over the world including one in NY city! Also the radical moslims feel that world domination BY THEM is the only thing which will save the world. And they apparently had been planning something like 9/11 for 15 years before it happened.

In another National Geographics program, they showed some of the things Saddam Husein did to terrorize his people. For example, they showed the police throwing a man off a building just because he criticized Saddam. Apparently Saddam had them video all the torture and abuse and show it on TV in order to terrorize Iraqis. This carefully researched National Geographics show DIRECTLY conflicts with Michael Moore's depiction of "happy people under Saddam" in "Fahenheit 9/11", the film which many people based their votes on, last time around.

Those who read history will find that Bin Laden had been writing threatening notes to Clinton when he was president and that Clinton describes in his book, "MY LIFE" sitting on the couch, ordering Iraq to be hit with a missile. The only difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton just DID the war moves whereas Bush went to Congress to get the will of the people. But of course, the bottom line is that Bush gets unpopular whereas most folks think Clinton was one of the best presidents.

So Obama's promise to immediately pull our troups out of Iraq would not only put the Iraqis at great danger but is likely to put our own USA soil in significant danger. McCain by contrast, reminds that you cannot reason with a terrorist especially if they have decided they MUST rule the world. And that the troups would be pulled in a reasonable manner.

Catholics writing about Obama are not much help. One Bishop reminds that his voting record is 100 percent "pro choice". But Obama is not only 100 percent pro ABORTION and financed by huge financial interests in the abortion industry but also was instrumental in killing the law protecting babies born alive from late term abortions, and allowing them to be given a chance at life. He voted for having them killed or letting them die because allowing them to live would "weaken" Roe v Wade (he said).

Obama offers health care to "all who need it" but forgets that any kind of nationalized health care will raise our taxes to the moon. Already people on the health care system overtax it with elective surgery etc. A nice promise but not real practical solution given.

His biggest plea is "we need change" but I'd like to remind that change just for the sake of change may be a very bad idea.

McCain lacks the young vibrant charm of Obama but if you read what his platform is, it makes a lot more sense and does offer practical solutions to our problems.

I hope the American people, for once, try to read and inform themselves of what the REAL issues are and not as some have done in the past, move forward to support a candidate cloaked in a schizophrenic haze of "a miracle will happen".

Pope Benedict's visit misreported by the press as usual!

2008-04-17T00:06:00.001-07:00

Today, Pope Benedict arrived in Washington and met our president on the White House lawn. He greeted the 13,000 people, some of whom had been lining up since 4 am in the morning, with a beautiful speech, spoken eloquently, emphasizing the dignity of humans of all ages (INCLUDING FETUSES OF COURSE), an idea which President Bush also mentioned in HIS speech. The Pope also stated that this country WAS founded on religious principles and that, as evidenced in HISTORY (something few Americans study!), government without morality and religious principles always has in the past, ended up in totalitarianism. Pointing out that it is wonderful that Americans have the right to worship in freedom (something which the small percentage of atheists are trying to take away from us - my comment - not his), he expressed his hope that the American people would live up to respecting the rights of "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" for all people. He concluded that freedom is a responsibility.

President Bush's speech was also beautiful and profound - that brought tears to my eyes as he spoke about the rights of ALL people from the womb to the elderly. He treated the Pope (who was celebrating his 81st birthday) with dignity but gave him a warm welcome. When Raymond Arroyo asked Bush what he saw when he looked into the eyes of the Pope (in an interview last week), Bush replied one word. "God. I see God", he said.

None of this was reported by the news media, obviously upset that the Catholic church would be portrayed in any type of positive light.

Instead, they concentrated on one sentence in a speech the Pope delivered, apparently before he arrived on American soil, about the Priest scandal. This one sentence became the headliner for most of the news - both on TV and on the internet:

In his most extensive comments about the crisis to date, the pope said that he was "deeply ashamed" and that the scandal had caused "great suffering" for the church and for "me personally." Speaking to reporters aboard his flight from Italy, Benedict also pledged greater efforts by the church to bar pedophiles from the priesthood.

Extensive comments? ONE SENTENCE? Since when is a sentence "extensive comments"?

From this the internet news launched into long articles about how much money the church has paid out to those who claim abuse from priests ad nausium.

The TV news searching long and hard, managed to find one priest, accused of touching boys, who was, according to them, not removed quickly enough from duties. They criticized the Pope hugging Cardinal George, that priest's Bishop. I guess they feel the Pope should have kicked him or something because he was "imperfect" in handling this situation (ignoring that the man traveling the country campaigning for his wife, our former president Clinton, used his powerful position as president to seduce a young woman, REPEATEDLY, in the Oval Office and then, perjured himself (i.e. LIED ABOUT IT) in front of the entire country. Can we say Hypocrasy?)

Finally, ABC news interviewed one tearful couple who looked in their 70's. They claimed some priest had been over to their home daily to "say his morning prayers" and had repeated raped their 5 year old daughter. She, according to the couple, had not told them about this until years later because she said she was "afraid" that her father would murder the priest (the father apparently had said if anyone ever hurt her, he would kill them).

Has anyone ever heard of manufactured memories? I for one, was not impressed by this case. Few people remember ANYTHING which happened at the age of 5 and had the child really suffered that type of trauma, she would have shown definite signs of abuse which would have been so obvious, shame on her parents for ignoring these signs. However, I think this "abuse" (like so many others) just happened in her head and NOT in reality.

The facts show that less than 1 percent of Catholic priests have been ACCUSED of abuse and of the small percentage, even less are convicted. Never-the-less, the constant battering by the news services has left many priests in great fear that anything they say or do, might be misinterpreted by say, a student who was given a non passing grade in school or angry for some other reason. And I speak this as having had a Jesuit for my spiritual advisor for several years. The wear and tear of this media blitz on our priests has been immeasurable but no one has even heard about this at all.

The media also showed film footage of people with signs from the anti Catholic group, SNAP. The signs read "Celibacy doesn't work".

Fact remains that 10 percent of Protestant ministers (who are allowed to be married) have been accused of sexual misconduct but according to government statistics, the most sexual abuse happens in families - 75 percent of childhood sexual abuse is committed by parents or step parents or close relatives.

But never shall the news moguls be confused with facts. The bottom line, seems to be "do anything which can neutralize the courageous Pope's visit and if we can mudsling at the Catholic church, well by all means, do it!"

Satan is alive and well in the news media which REALLY doesn't like the Catholic church because of the church's strong stand against abortion, an industry which in the 1980's had reached a profit of 500 million a year (according to Nathenson who was one of the co-founders of NARAL) and now, may well be profiting in the billions.

Hopefully Catholics will be smarter than that and discard the negative spin from the news media. Hopefully. Unfortunately for those who do not listen to EWTN and other Catholic media, outfits like ABC News are all they have to inform them of the news.

The group, SNAP, has told the media that the Pope's statement about the priest abuse was "not enough". Not surprising because in other interviews, the group (none of which are still Catholic by the way) has stated their bottom line is the demise of the Catholic church. Catholics should remember that "EX-Catholics are about as Catholic as Ex-husbands are married."

Finally for those who are abused, I don't have a lot of sympathy for their backlash movement against the church and the 99 percent of priests who are pure and obedient to their vows. I, as a victim of being sexually molested myself as a 12 year old by my music teacher, will admit that a sexual molestation like that can somewhat ruin a person's life in a way but also, a child when confronted by a stranger who does this, can take him/herself out of the relationship and should do so, after the first offense.

In other words, when my 50 year old, married violin teacher, the father of 2 kids himself, molested me in the car going home from a concert, I did not give up the violin... I only found another violin teacher.

All this is just a smoke screen so Americans do not really get the impact of the fact that abortion mills murder 5000 unborn babies each day. To the tune of a big profit. Let's hear the news bimbos talk about that one. Don't hold your breath! They only care about kids when they can use them to diss the church which stands up for morals which they would like to forget.

School named after Our Lady presents vulgar play

2008-03-12T10:04:00.000-07:00

The University of Notre Dame in Southbend, IND, has apparently presented the play entitled the "Vagina Monologues" for the past 2 years as a student production and is planning to present it again this year.

Fr John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University, who approves of the presentation of this play, states he has allowed it, in order to present all viewpoints to the student body. My open question to him is whether Catholics who attend the university WANT all viewpoints (especially those considered sinful by the Catholic church) when they pay the high tuition for Notre Dame and if they did want "all" viewpoints, why wouldn't they save thousands of bucks per year and attend the public universities?

The V-monologues, apparently presents several sub-plays, some of which include chanting, singing and repeating vulgar terms for the female part, much resembling, said one article, "a Billy Graham crusade". Others have described the play as thinly veiled male bashing or reducing a woman to being a sexual object and in the CNS article, it was mentioned that alternate expressions of intimacy like lesbianism are included in the play. According to Bishop D'arcy of the diocese of South Bend Indiana, who opposes Notre Dame's decision and who has apparently studied the text of the V-monologues, one of the subplays portrays a sexual relationship between a woman and a young girl. I suspect that this play will likely be openly or covertly anti Catholic as most of this type of stuff is.

I think that it's a student production, is even worse than were it a professional production because in learning the lines and practicing for the play, won't the students LEARN what the play wants to teach which seems diametrically opposed to Catholic teachings?

Fr Jenkins' feels the student production of the monologues is appropriate because it is presented in a classroom setting, no admission is charged and because "people MAY debate the pro's and con's of Catholic teachings" after the play. I asked the president's office whether one could assume that the students putting ON the play AGREED with what the play preached and she said "yes, we can assume that." I also asked her what would be the reason parents would SEND their kids to a school like Notre Dame if they wanted "all viewpoints" because they can get THAT in a public university at state tuition fees. There was no official answer to that question.

I also informed them that Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society has published a book of Catholic Colleges which still DO uphold traditional Catholic teachings and that though the bottom line on allowing this "Play" may be to not annoy the students advocating it, (so they do not choose another school) that the decision might hurt them in the long run where Catholic parents WILL choose other schools, such as those listed in Patrick Reilly's book of colleges.

I asked for Fr Jenkins' email address and she gave it to me...

president@nd.edu

(this is not listed on the website by the way).

You can express your concern to Bishop D'Arcy of SouthBend Diocese, using the following email address of his secy asking her to forward the letter to him.

mschott@fw.diocesefwsb.org

Bishop D'Arcy is very much against the presentation of this play at Notre Dame and wrote for a recent editorial in "Today's Catholic" their diocesan newspaper:

"The Vagina Monologues is offensive to women; it is antithetical to Catholic teaching on the beautiful gift of human sexuality and also to the teachings of the church on the human body relative to its purpose and to its status as a temple of the Holy Spirit. The human body and the human person, in the tradition of the church, must never be seen as an object. "

Bishop D'arcy also wrote:

"The theme, however, finds no place in the text in question. In that text, the physical is separated from the spiritual. The body is separated from love. The woman is separated from the man and is even placed in opposition to him. There is nothing of beauty here, nothing of love. There is much here which Notre Dame has stood against and has opposed in recent times, both in administrative decisions and in pastoral work. It is especially painful that this play is being performed at Notre Dame, the school of Our Lady, as many of her graduates call her. She, who is both virgin and mother, has always drawn people in this place to the highest ideals in their respect for one another and for women. Her watchful presence over the campus and her prayerful intercession for Notre Dame over the years cannot be tarnished; but her presence, so often invoked in this place, gives special responsibilities on the rest of us who love her and who love her university."

I do think that Catholics should make their feelings known about this type of deviation from Catholic teachings on a Catholic campus which can mislead many students attending the school. How sad that a university named after the Blessed Mother, the exemplification of purity and virginity and authentic femininity, is presenting such a play.

Bill Clinton's deception about pro lifers

2008-03-04T23:23:00.000-08:00

While campaigning for his wife’s Democratic nomination, Bill Clinton, was confronted by pro-Life demonstrators. One protester held up a sign that said "Abortion is murder." Bill Clinton lost his cool: "I gave you the answer. We disagree with you." He continued,

"You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, if you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't."

This is a clever ruse on the part of Mr Clinton, a view probably shared by his wife, Hillary and an easy excuse for condemning both pro lifers and the pro life movement but of course, it is a totally warped view of reality.

First of all, it's a lie that Clinton did a lot to reduce abortions. He wouldn't DO that since he was heavily FINANCED by the abortion industry!

Secondly, Pro life folks are NOT targeting ANY humans either providing abortions or having abortions. What they are targeting is the idea that the termination of a human being can be a "choice" in a country which has a document offering ALL Americans the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness", these things which are NOT offered to those unlucky infants in utero whose mothers decide that they should not live.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the whys and wherefores of Roe V Wade (and its companion decision, Doe V Bolton) which allows this "choice" for any reason up to the moment of birth.

The Supreme Court does not work with the scientific reality that an unborn child IS a full fledged human being. Their decision, a very close one, by the way - vote was like 5 in favor, 4 against - was based on their decision that the writers of the Constitution did not mean to include unborn children among those having the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and so in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the protection of unborn children would come under question (according to the decision).

While it is true that when the Constitution was written, there WERE several groups of people not considered to be included in the declaration of these "inalienable rights" (among which were indentured servants, slaves, and women), since abortion was considered, for centuries, a horrendous insult to mother and baby, it is likely that the only reason unborn babies were NOT specified in the Constitution as protected, was because it was likely, off the radar screen of those who drafted it, that anyone would NOT advocate the protection of unborn children.

A Guttmacher institute survey several years ago (in the 1980's, I think) found that if abortion were not legal, 75 percent of women would not have abortions. Many of the aborted women I've met, are now sorry that this "choice" was available - they had chosen this route out of desperation and because of pressure from society, family and friends but as the years pass, find that they never get over those children who were never born because of their decisions.

One of the strongest pro life groups around and one of the fastest GROWING groups in the USA is "Silent No More", a group composed OF aborted women who feel they were cheated out of a part of their lives by that decision and want to warn other women BEFORE they make that choice.

Finally, another Guttmacher survey found that "the more women know about abortion, the more they are against it".

So Mr and Mrs Clinton, nice try but no dice. Pro life means PRO LIFE and the protection and acknowledgement of the sanctity of human life in all ages and all habitats, including women, babies AND those doctors providing abortion.

The John and Sally Cojanis mission

2008-02-07T02:11:00.000-08:00

We've all been to missions at church. Mostly it's a priest who is a good speaker and we sit and listen and that's good, we learn a lot. But somehow I have not been too inspired to go to this type of mission.

At our church just before Lent, we had a different type of mission given by John and Sally Cojanis. I guess the fact that they ARE lay people and that people who have attended their missions say there are some miraculous physical healings taking place, intrigued me enough to attend.

This couple, obviously in a long term marriage, are just ordinary folks like us, living on a major shoestring (they are some of the few in the fulltime ministry who really ARE living hand to mouth - although God's Hand to their mouth!).

Cojanis' are real. They don't pretend to be something they aren't. John does prayers of healing (and attendees of his mission participate in praying for others, a very healing practice in itself) but he says up front that sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't (the physical healings). I think the spiritual healings DO happen to all who attend! And those are the most important healings.

You cannot really put them in a category or box. They are NOT "faith healers". But miracles happen at their missions. They are charismatic but probably not in the charismatic movement.

They DO give talks containing homespun wisdom which all can relate to. For example we were told to go to confession. John asked us "what if you were in this very fancy restaurant, you know the type where the waiter comes and asks (in a British accent) 'can I grind some pepper for your dinner?'. And then the waiter goes into the kitchen, kicking open the door and you see all sorts of cockroaches - on the counters, on the floors?" He then pointed out that if we don't go to confession, our souls could look like that restaurant kitchen! It was memorable!

We were also asked to forgive someone we know. I, at first, thought, "well I've forgiven everyone" but John told us "think of someone you need to forgive, someone who did not treat you very well!" And a friend who had dropped me without any explanation came to mind. John led us through a prayer of forgiveness for that person. He said the words and we repeated after him. And that was a healing feeling to do that. More importantly we learned HOW to pray like that! "You know, the bridge to Heaven is made of YOUR forgivenness!" John reminded us. What a picture and how true seeing as how we pray in the Lord's Prayer "Forgive us our sins AS we forgive those who sin against us!"

What I loved about this mission was I could relate to everything they said in their talks (Sally read a poem about if Jesus came to stay with us, would we have to change the way we lived? Would we feel comfortable or wait for Him to leave?). And then, after the talks, we prayed together and John taught us HOW to pray for each other. It was a spiritually intense experience and very healing whether the physical healing came or not.

John and Sally are very much in demand (I can imagine - most who attend this mission love it) and they travel a lot, living most of the time in a motorhome and following a rather backbreaking schedule.

John has had two unsuccessful heart bypass surgeries and lives with the cloud over his head of wondering how much longer the Lord will allow him to minister. The mission was not easy for him to give. The second day, he sat down for part of the prayer service and looked very tired and pale after the first session was done.

There are many around who claim to be annointed and I find most of them not what they claim but, and I don't say this lightly, this couple SEEMED really annointed to me, very up front and just darned good people.

There were no spectacular healings at our session although I heard that at the night session, there were more healings. I felt the pain in my arthritic thumb go away and also the crunching in my neck (from arthritis). The crunching in my neck is still gone but the pain in my thumb has returned with a vengeance. Relief from it for a couple of days was nice though.

John said to continue our healings we needed prayer AND fasting. And that fasting combined with prayer was powerful. "But don't fast to lose weight," he told us. And this Ash Wednesday, I fasted for the first time in my life. And it was hard for me but a good feeling.

If John and Sally Cojanis visit your parish, go to their mission - go both days because I believe it is an honor to have attended and you will certainly, walk away with a whole lot of spiritual healing, increased skills in praying, serenity and peace and some good tools for practicing Christianity. You might even witness a miracle of physical healing or two or three.

Death

2008-01-30T12:27:00.001-08:00

Sooner or later in a blog like this, I've got to write about death. Because it's something we all, will have to face.

However, I find I wrote about death last week so this will be my second post about it. Oh well.

I will never forget an email I got early in my web net era. The writer, a young woman, wrote:

"You are correct about starvation killing us. What I want to know is, how long does it take to die of starvation? You see I stopped eating a week ago."

In my usual manner, I was reading email in the early hours of the morning and I stared at that one for several minutes, a feeling of horror creeping over me. Something about it led me to believe she was serious and really wanted to end her own life. I wrote back what might be called a collection of "bromides" (what DO you say to someone who is intent on ending her life?). Like "you have your whole life ahead of you" and "can anything be so bad that death is preferable to living?" and so forth. I never heard back from the woman so don't know if she was reaching out in her final hour or if she aborted the plan. I hope, of course, the latter.

We all have seen death in the movies and TV many times. I'm sure you are familiar with the scene.

Bad guys (and women) die quickly, usually by accident or gunshot but since they have no personality, we don't worry about them.

And good people die lying there, either in their beds or on the street. They have a serene look on their faces - some even seem look wide eyed at the other side of the room suggesting they have seen an angel coming to get them (and in many movies, people are SHOWN on the other side, walking in a beautiful field of flowers toward a golden horizon).

Church tells us we should work and pray for a Holy Death. Which is basically what the movies are showing us. A beautiful death where we smoothly transition from life to eternity. In the "Hail Mary" we ask Jesus' mother to pray for us during the two most important times in our lives.... NOW at the moment -and- at the hour of our death.

Trouble is, being 63 years old, I'm beginning to see some folks around me die and their deaths are anything but the movie variety. They are angry, they often fight with their families and a greater number than we would like to think, commit suicide by stopping consuming liquids and food.

A relative in our family who was dying of cancer, told his wife "Come on let's get on with this" and he stopped drinking fluids. He rallied for a day when some of his siblings came to visit him and he ate some popsicles but then the day after they left, no fluids again.

A priest friend of mine had two personas. One was the kindly elderly priest - what most people who knew him saw. The other was the one I knew, an angry disappointed man who wondered every day whether he had made the wrong life decision. A man who was so angry, he felt he couldn't face his anger and told me he distracted himself when he started thinking about it. "Has that diminished your anger?" I once asked him. "No" he admitted.

I felt it's always better to face one's fears and anger because that's the only way to get rid of it. One of my favorite poems is "the litany of fear" from Herbert's Sci Fi book, DUNE:

"Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it is gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

Of course, men tend to suppress their emotions and he was no exception. On the contrary. He did not take my advice about this, and so, instead of facing his fears, he got increasingly angry and afraid inside. And it began to, I believe, take its toll on him physically.

I guess I hoped he would come to grips with his life situations which really were not bad - he had lived a long full life and I thought a nice retirement and resting for his last years when he really could pray and spend time with God getting ready for the big passage (and interceding for the many people in the world who are needy), would be the ticket.

But that was not to be. Instead he starved himself more and worked feverishly to avoid thinking about how angry and afraid he was inside.

"My greatest fear", he once told me, "is that when I face God in death, I will reject Him!" I thought that was ridiculous - who would say "no" to God. He looked sad and said I didn't understand. And I guess I didn't.

But God in His Mercy, must have thought that a real possibility because as it turned out, he had some kind of stroke and was so confused before he lost consciousness forever, that he undoubtedly didn't even THINK about refusing God's mercy.

And I suppose in a way that tells us just how merciful God IS but geesh, this is NOT how you want to see a priest die!

I am remembering a saying I once heard "most men live a life of quiet desperation!"

I have seen one lady die a Holy Death - she was a patient named Anna whom I visited a few times to give her Communion. And I was not with her when she died but I saw in her face, when I visited her the last couple of times, real beauty, breathtaking beauty. Almost like a luminescence shining out from her face. I bring those I go to visit, treats like candy or small gifts (magazines etc) but to this lady, the greatest gift I could give her was praying the Rosary with her. One time she made it through (and this was difficult because she was very ill). "We made it through," she said, triumphantly in her weakened voice and touched my arm with her frail hand. "yes, true" I said, smiling at her beautiful face.

The last time I visited her, three days before her death, she was too weak to say a Rosary so we said a couple of "Hail Mary's". I gently took her arm and said "Anna, you know I love you!" and she said "Yes I do and I love you too".

A couple of days later, her daughter called to tell me that she had died. I felt great serenity about her death because when I saw her, she was on the threshold of Heaven.

But most I have seen die, do not die Holy Deaths and some die definitely unholy deaths but God in His Mercy will reach out to us all and I guess that's as inspirational as seeing someone die a Holy Death.

Living forever on earth - a heaven or the other place

2008-01-23T15:52:00.000-08:00

Living forever on earth is something which has occurred to each of us, I'm sure, especially as we grow older. And death not being particularly appealing, the idea of not having to face it, seems at first, a rather pleasant one.

It has been the subject of several movies, one of which is called "Tuck Everlasting". I don't remember much about this movie except that a girl whom our hero (who is living forever on earth after drinking from a spring) has fallen in love with , chooses to _not_ drink from the Spring because she decides she doesn't want to live forever. At least not on earth. I believe Tuck moves on... he's seen many live and die - no big deal.

In searching the web, the subject is discussed a lot but no one reaches any conclusion about whether this would be a good idea or not.

Perhaps one of the most memorable treatments of the subject was a TV show wherein a magic man gives the elderly in a nursing home (none of whom are suffering from the usual maladies like osteoporosis, alzheimers, or blindness) the chance to be kids again. All of them jump, at first, at the idea of moving without pain and having their whole lives ahead of them. But one by one, as they think about it and even experience being young, they decide against it. One lady says that she does not want to be young again without the love of her life at her side. Another person says he would not want to live through his life again. In the end, all the elderly go back to being elderly and only one individual remains a youth - he joyfully bid his littermates farewell and goes bounding through an open window into the night, headed for a lifetime of new adventures. I (probably like many other viewers) reached no conclusion about whether I would like to be the one who remains a youth or whether I would go back to being old and arthritic. Perhaps that was because I was reasonably young when I first watched this show.

Truth is, we all have a desire to live forever but most of us, especially as we grow older, get to feeling that perhaps living forever would not be real fun, if we remained earthbound.

The movie "Cocoon" and its sequel attempts to solve the dilemma without annoying anyone by mentioning the unmentionable (God, Heaven). It pictures a group of elderly going to "another place" which is pictured like a PERFECT earth where there is no sickness and pain. Heaven as Christians think of it, is strongly hinted at. Especially poignant in "Cocoon: The Return" was the separation of one grandpa from his grandson. Grandson was temporarily happy when his Grandpa returned but very sad when Grandpa leaves the earth forever.

Being 63 years old and having lost, first my best friend, 5 years ago (whom I still miss - she died of cancer) and recently having lost my Spiritual Advisor, a Jesuit priest who just turned 80 last year, I am beginning to formulate MY answer to this dilemma. I feel it would only be fun living forever if one could be with those one loves. For it seems that Heaven begins with being with our loved ones and goes from there.

And perhaps this lonely feeling we get when friends start being called Home, is planned by God to help us get over the fear of the great unknown, the sheer terror of the crossing over from earth to beyond. As time moves on, we think more and more about that place or state of being about which the Bible tells us "earth has not seen nor man has not known of the glories God has planned for those who love Him".

Priest dismissed because of pro life homily?

2008-01-09T15:52:00.000-08:00

Lifesite news recently reported that a priest in the diocese of Rockford, was dismissed because of daring to preach on Natural Family Planning (NFP). That does sound concerning so I researched it a bit.

I couldn't get hold of anyone at the parish but I did read the homily available on the Lifesite website. Even from reading the homily, I got a very different point of view of what happened than was reported by Lifesite news.

First of all, it wasn't a homily, but rather a sermon having little to do with the readings (the homily is supposed to be a clarification of or based on the readings of the day).

Second, it was rather long and he rambled on and on. In places, the sermon could have been called a rant.

Third, he was inflammatory toward doctors, categorizing all of them (he did not qualify his statements to say "some" or even "many") as money greedy and incompetent. I understand his ire toward the medical profession but spinning negative stereotypes during a sermon in church is very inappropriate.

Fourth, he recommended (for some reason) two secular books on NFP which he admitted DID advocate contraception which is against church law - there is a Billings website, there is couples-to-couples league, EWTN and one-small-life and lots of CATHOLIC groups putting out NFP information so why would he recommend two secular books which advocate contraception? Most concerning about that is that NFP is NOT "Catholic contraception" and should NOT be thought of as such. It is making conception a decision between two married people and then, leaving the door open for God to override in case He sees fit. VERY different idea from contraception and important for Catholics to understand the difference.

Fifth, although Fr Tom's sermon mentioned that NFP was God's Plan, the sermon had nothing whatsoever to DO with the season of Advent or getting ready for the coming of Jesus and God has little mention in the sermon or rant.

It is not surprising that several parishioners left the church in frustration especially as this may not have been the first time Fr Tom gave a similar talk.

Can't blame them. As pro life as I am, I think I would rather hear a HOMILY on the readings, during the holy season of Advent (and I heard some excellent ones which helped me get ready for Christmas). Mentioning pro life is very appropriate but doing a teaching on the mechanics of NFP (including how one does it) during Advent when one is supposed to be talking about the readings seems very inappropriate even to some of us who are pro life folks.

My bets are, his dismissal from the parish is NOT because he was talking about NFP from the pulpit but rather has to do with many factors, some of which may be:

That there may have been several complaints about his long Off Topic rants
The fact that he admitted he was hospitalized recently for an unnamed illness but in a 70 year old, every illness is serious - his health may just not be holding up well under the stress of parish work
That he seems to have no qualms about putting inflamatory statements into his sermons - those really don't do any good and can end up turning people away from the church

So now the diocese is likely finding him a position which will be easier on him energy-wise as well as discerning a place for him which will make the best use of his ardent pro life feelings and ability to teach NFP (maybe at this moment they are making a blog for him to write in!). :)

There are unfortunately, several pro life sources which have high visiblity, which do not check their information well and often write with a heavy bias.

Bad information from Catholics and/or pro lifers is as annoying as bad information from the press. In these days of spin we must question --- EVERYTHING....