They Marched in the Belly of the Beast

The West Coast March for Life took place in San Francisco, the actual belly of the beast with an estimated attendance of 40,000. You'll note in the small counter protest that the homosexuals are out in drag. Why, you ask, do homosexuals care about abortion? Because for them it's all about doing whatever I want with MY body. If I want to abort the baby in it, sodomize with it, drug it, contracept it, kill it, etc. it's MY decision.

This is a spiritual war between those who kneel before the Lord who says, "This is my body, given up for you" and respond, "Thy will be done;" and those who scream, "This is MY body, and I can do whatever I want with it. MY will be done."

Pray for those enslaved by the concupiscence of their bodies, that they might recognize the danger of letting brother ass, as St. Francis called his body, be in charge.

Ann Coulter gave HOMOCON an earful: Does that justify her appearance?

HOMOCON is over and Ann Coulter gave them an earful, speaking against same sex marriage and criticizing their attemp to portray themselves as victims similar to victims of racism. So, does Ann's giving an in-your-face speech justify her speaking at the event? Not in my opinion.

I have to agree with Joseph Farah's assessment. If you speak to the KKK you give them credibility regardless of whether you criticize their positions or not.

If a celebrity chooses to speak to the Ku Klux Klan, there is no question the Klan benefits from such an appearance – no matter how much the speaker might attempt to explain the differences he or she might have with the group's agenda. Justifying such an appearance by suggesting it's just another paid speaking gig would hardly mollify the criticism or negate the benefit the Klan received from the event.

Of course, no one in respectable public life would consider speaking to the Klan for those reasons.

However, I would suggest the ungodly, sin-glorifying homosexual agenda represents a far greater and far more imminent danger to the future of the United States than does the Klan's racist, ungodly and sin-glorifying agenda.

That's not to say we should never speak to or evangelize sinners – be they Klan members or homosexual activists. In fact, that's exactly what we should do. What we should never do is... validate their activism in any way. [my emphasis]

The homosexual network wants to be in the news. Controversy serves their purpose. That people are arguing about their legitimacy gives them credibility. That's what Coulter did and I agree with Joseph Farah that it was wrong.

Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter: The Smoking Gun Fires a Blank

The 1985 letter from Cardinal Ratzinger is being hyped by the media as proof that the Cardinal was soft on sex abuse. When I read the letter I sort of scratched my head. This is the smoking gun that proves the Church was soft on sex abuse?

Fr. Joseph Fessio puts this in perspective. (Read the complete column here.) Here's a portion of what he writes:

When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.

What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.

This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.

And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.

I think the media will have to come up with something more substantive than this before they string up Pope Benedict. But have no fear, they will keep trying.

It is certainly interesting how little attention the media gives to cleaning up the abuse in the public schools where children can be sent off to abortion mills without telling their parents, and where teachers and coaches in large numbers have abused kids. Somehow the media isn't particularly interested in that story. In fact they aid and abet the psychological and emotional molesting of children by gay activists.

The American College of Pediatricians recently warned about the damage to children from pro-gay promotion of gender confusion. But don't hold your breath waiting for the mainstream media to report that story. The kids are just collateral damage in the homosexual war against straight America.

USCCB Run by Leftwing Liberal Democrats - Sign the Petition to REFORM CCHD NOW!

For all the Real Catholic TV coverage of the USCCB and to sign the Reform CCHD petition, go here. It's time to send a strong message to the bishops that faithful Cathoics will no longer be patsies for those willing to collect for the poor while funneling money to the culture of death.