More on "Hate Crimes" Bill: Lynching the truth

Portraying the "hate crimes" bill as defending gays against discrimination is a lie. Leftists lynch the truth using any crime that involves a gay to claim a hate motivation. But when a gay murders a Christian, like Mary Stachowicz, the media ignores it and gay activists say "she deserved it." THIS IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. IT IS A SPECIAL RIGHTS BILL. It will deny free speech to Christians and others who object to homosexual immorality. "Gays" already are treated with special protection. When they engage in public nudity and mutual masturbation during "pride" events, police look the other way. This bill will increase hatred all right, hatred against Christians like Mary Stachowicz who cared enough to speak the truth in love. She was murdered for it. The video below has some offensive footage from "gay pride" events. It is definitely not for children, but it is information to wake up adults who think that gays' perverted relationships are equivalent to traditional marriage. They are not!



For more on the "hate crimes" bill see these articles:

Reid Supports Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Politico)

Hate Crimes Act Has Far-Reaching Effects "A member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says the federal hate crimes bill pending in the Senate 'will do little good and a great deal of harm.'"

Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under Hate Bill "This bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions."

Call your Senators today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote NO on the Sen. Leahy's amendment adding S. 909 to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

They're slick, they're con artists, and they'll do anything to pass their extreme agenda!

If you read a history of the founding fathers, you find that most suffered for their ideals. Many ended up destitute and had to start over after the Revolutionary War. Their homes were burned, their belongings confiscated, nine even lost their lives. After his presidency, Thomas Jefferson was deeply in debt. In those days "public service" truly was service. Today, most of those who "serve" in public office leave office rich as Croesus and end up in lucrative jobs using their "connections" to further enrich themselves. To put it bluntly, many politicians prostitute themselves both in and out of office. Integrity and politics are too often strangers.

So is it any wonder to find politicians using sneaky stealth tactics to impose their extremist agendas on the American people? The Democrats are adept at disguising their actions and adding controversial issues to unrelated legislation as amendments, often to appropriation bills that legislators want to pass. Both sides do it, but the Dems have turned it into an art, like those three dimensional stereogram pictures hiding within another picture.

One stealth issue coming up this week is the work of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). He plans to add the "Hate Crimes" bill (S. 909: The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act described by opponents as the Pedophile Protection Act) as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill. The Amendment is not really about protecting people from crime (hate or otherwise) - laws already exist for that. This is all about giving special rights to homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgendered folks. (Did I miss anybody?) So if your granny gets mugged on the street it's not a hate crime, but if Joe Blow is dressed in an evening gown and stiletto heels and gets mugged he gets special treatment as the victim of a "hate crime."

But it's about more than that. Hate crimes are designed to stifle criticism of the immoral gay lifestyle. In Canada where hate crime legislation has been on the books for some time, church ministers have been prosecuted for quoting Bible passages condemning sodomy. Magazine and newspaper editors are fined for allowing ads critical of homosexual behavior. Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and Basilian priest, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, were both brought before the Human Rights Commission for defending Church teaching on traditional marriage against the same-sex marriage onslaught. In another Canadian case, Bill Whatcott, was banned for life by a Saskatchewan court from ever publicly criticizing homosexuality. This is the ultimate goal of hate crime legislation - to muzzle free speech against homosexual immorality. Those who engage in sodomy and anal sex are above criticism in the world of "hate crimes."

If Christians don't fight this amendment, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves when we are targeted with the same persecution as our northern neighbors. And, in fact, the persecution has already begun. In 2008 a New Mexico Christian photographer, Elaine Huguenin who refused to photograph the "commitment ceremony" of two lesbians, was prosecuted by the New Mexico Human Rights Division. They said her action defied state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination. She is being defended by the Alliance Defense Fund whose spokesman says they will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Somehow, with confirmation hearings going on that will probably seat activist judge Sonia Sotomayor on the high court, I'm not particularly comforted by that thought. Once the court is packed with judicial activists committed to furthering the liberal agenda, there will be little hope for constitutional rights. When free speech is murdered who will resurrect it?

For more information about why hate crimes are bad and actually promote hatred of people who oppose homosexual behavior, see Rob Gagnon's article, Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You.

Christians must continue to put on the armor of God and fight. Call your Senators today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote NO on the Sen. Leahy's amendment adding S. 909 to the Department of Defense authorization bill. Don't let Senator Slick and his buddies con us out of our right to free speech. We pay their salaries after all!

Archbishop Fisichella gets his come-uppance!

Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who wrote the article repudiating the actions of the his brother bishop in Brazil, Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho, with regard to the nine-year-old child whose twins were aborted has essentially been repudiated by the Vatican. Of course they never actually repudiate members of the hierarchy, but a clarification from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith carried by L'Osservatore Romano essentially overturns the opinions stated by Archbishop Fisichella. It couldn't happen too soon for concerned Catholics! Let's hope the Archbishop exerts better control over his pen and his mouth in the future. Pray that all our shepherds will be vigilant in defending Catholic truth, especially the life issues.

Check out our former post here and the clarification here.

The Legionaries of Christ: an example of blind obedience

Chiesa News has an interview with Fr. Thomas Berg, a former member of the Legionaries of Christ. The Vatican investigation of the order begins this week and Fr. Berg, who is now incardinated in the Archdiocese of New York, addresses some of the problems in the Legion. He gave an extensive commentary on the Legion's practice of "unquestioning submission" to superiors:

At the core of serious problems in the internal culture of the congregation is a mistaken understanding and living of the theological principle - in itself valid - that God's will is made manifest to the religious through his superior. The Legionary seminarian is erroneously led to foster a hyper-focusing on internal "dependence" on the superior for virtually every one of his intentional acts (either explicitly or in virtue of some norm or permission received, or presumed or habitual permissions). This is not in harmony with the tradition of religious life in the Church, nor is it theologically or psychologically sound. It entails rather an unhealthy suppression of personal freedom (which is a far cry from the reasoned, discerned and freely exercised oblation of mind and will that the Holy Spirit genuinely inspires in the institution of religious obedience) and occasions unholy and unhealthy restrictions on personal conscience.

Furthermore, Legionary norms regarding "reporting to," "informing," "communication with," and "dependence on" superiors constitute a system of control and conformity which now must be considered highly suspect given what we know about Fr. Maciel. They furthermore engender a simplistic, and humanly and theologically impoverished notion of God's will (its discernment and manifestation) that breeds personal immaturity.

More seriously, the lived manner in which Legionaries practice obedience is laced with the kind of unquestioning submission which allowed the cult of personality to emerge around the figure of Maciel in the first place and covered for his misdeeds. Legionary seminarians are essentially trained to suspend reason in their obedience and to seek a total internal conformity with all the norms, and to withstand any internal impulse to examine or critique the norms or the indications of superiors.

Granted, the primary motivation behind such living of obedience is the ideal of total "immolation" of oneself for the love of Christ as embodied in the relentless living of all norms and indications of the superiors. This "immolation" of intellect and will is at the heart of the "holocaust" that the Legionary is invited to live for love of Christ and the Church. While the motivation is valid, and generations of Legionaries have pursued this in good faith, in the long run it not only proves profoundly problematic, but also explains the negative personality change which many, if not most, Legionaries undergo over time: the shallowness of their emotional expression, the lack of empathy and inability to relate normally to others in so many contexts, the general sense of their being "out of touch," etc. Only exceptionally do Legionary priests move beyond this, but only thanks to the multiple talents and human gifts they brought with them to the Legion.

It is more important than ever for Catholics to understand what constitutes legitimate authority and obedience to God's will. Those exercising authority may never infringe on the legitimate exercise of free will by those under them. Pray for the discernment of the Legionaries and their openness to God's will.

Social Development Begins with Respect for Life

A Commentary on Chapter 1 of Caritas in Veritate: The Truth Doesn't Change

Back in the 70s (before the term "rescue" was in common use) a group of pro-life activists, including myself, conducted regular sit-ins at an abortion mill euphemistically called The Northern Virginia Women's Medical Center. The Center didn't do any medicine; their primary business was killing children. The administrator of the facility was a young woman named Sharon. She and I conversed many times: during sit-ins, at recess in court - we even debated on a local radio station. I tried to witness in Christian charity and challenged Sharon to put her nursing skills to real use instead of killing children. She never stopped in the time I knew her, although one of her nurses, Pam, burned out and left.

Once when our group had again successfully entered the mill to block the killing even though the doors were locked (a nurse opened the door as we walked down the corridor), Sharon said to me in frustration, "You sound like a broken record; you always say the same thing." I replied, "Sharon, the truth doesn't change."

I thought of that as I continued reading Caritas in Veritate this week. The Church doesn't change. Even in the face of new technology and societal development, the principles that guide our actions always remain the same. Pope Benedict makes that clear by his heavy dependence on Pope Paul VI's encyclical Populorum Progressio published more than 40 years ago and reference to the apostles and to the ancient fathers and doctors of the Church. Standing with one foot firmly planted in the traditions of the past and the other in the present facing new challenges, the Church remains solidly grounded in ancient, unchanging truths.

Pope Benedict describes the "two important truths" of Pope Paul's encyclical:

The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting -- when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity -- is engaged in promoting integral human development....The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.

So human development is oriented toward the individual who is seen as an integrated whole: body, intellect, and will. Pope Benedict speaks the same message shared by the great reformers of every age, "the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity." Consider the Apostles going to the ends of the earth carrying the message of evangelization and baptizing people one by one. The central force serving this true human development, the very heart of social teaching, is "Christian charity" at the service of life.

Life ethics, Pope Benedict makes crystal clear, are at the very heart of social ethics. There can be no true "dignity of the person, justice and peace" where "human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized." Human progress is essentially a vocation "that derives from a transcendent call." It "presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual" and recognizes that each individual is the "principal agent of his own success or failure." The Gospel, Pope Paul says and Pope Benedict reaffirms "is fundamental for development" and it must, to be true, "involve the whole man and every man."

The world often denies the necessity of the Church, faith, and God to bring about human progress. Instead worldly institutions (government, schools, charitable foundations, think tanks, etc.) are seen as the agents of change for the betterment of society. But the pope makes it clear that:

institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover...it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development.

Think of the paganized public school system attempting to solve the problem of teenage pregnancy by teaching children to fornicate without consequence (an impossibility) and you'll understand what the pope means by "a dehumanized form of development."

Pope Benedict stresses that the Church's social doctrine throughout the ages forms "a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new" that shares "the coherence of the overall doctrinal corpus....The church's social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging." From the Apostles to the Fathers of the Church to "the great Christian doctors" Church teaching still speaks to us today. The great moral principles of the past never grow old, they simply find new applications.

From the very beginning of his encyclical, Pope Benedict makes it clear that respect for life and the dignity of the human person, man's own freedom and responsibility and call to vocation, lie at the center of any discussion of social progress and social justice. It is not a message the media welcomes or is likely to promote. So read the document, not the media spin on its contents.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Blind Obedience is not a Virtue

The latest issue of Christifidelis, from the St. Joseph Foundation, is out and it's a corker! The lead article by Philip Gray, J.C.L. is a great discussion on what obedience is and when a person is required to obey a lawful authority. Obedience is a subset of the cardinal virtue of justice which requires us to give to God and neighbor what is due to them. We owe absolute obedience to God, so all other laws are subservient to and subject to God's laws. When there's a conflict between God's law and a lower law, guess what we have to do? "We must obey the higher [law] lest we sin."

There are limits on human authority. "Directives that violate divine law must be ignored, and in many circumstances we have an obligation to resist them actively." Gray gives China's forced abortion laws as an example.

We must obey legitimate authority. However, if those in authority act outside the boundaries of their authority, they need not be obeyed. For example, parents have authority over their children, but don't have the right to demand that an adult child follow a particular vocation. So when St. Clare fled from home to become a nun she did not act in disobedience.

My own mom left Cleveland against her mother's will (but with her father's support) to fly to California and marry my dad before he was deployed to Pearl Harbor in 1940. Even if her father had joined in opposing the marriage, she would not have been disobedient to ignore their wishes because parents have no authority to choose the marriage partners of their children. (I guess that means I can't arrange any marriages for my grandchildren. Darn!)

Gray points out that "to develop the virtue of obedience, we must develop an adequate knowledge of divine laws and those human laws that regulate our lives. We have to know the limits of authority. If we do not know the limits of authority, we can be easily manipulated or used by lawful authority." In other words, just because someone has authority over me doesn't mean I'm obliged to follow every directive. He cannot demand unlawful obedience. Those who "when faced with a direction...neither seek to know options and consequences nor deliberate their choices" show an attitude that "is not true obedience nor is it virtuous." In other words, blind obedience is the cop-out of a lazy individual who doesn't want to take the trouble to study and understand the nature of obedience, its requirements and its limits.

Gray goes on to say that "we have an obligation to know the divine laws and what our obligations to God are. Only with knowledge of divine laws and the legitimate boundaries of lawful authority can we obey." The person who claims authority must also be able to prove it because "we are not bound to obey someone who cannot provide proof of his authority and who does not stay within the bounds of his power."

Gray uses the example of options for Communion as an example of the abuse of legitimate authority, perhaps because it's been so common over the years. In the Latin rite, the communicant has the option of kneeling or standing for Communion and the priest may not infringe on that right. "If a priest demands that a kneeling communicant stand, the communicant does not have to obey....If the communicant follows the priest's demand, this is not obedience. Obedience takes place only when we give authority its rightful due. In this case, the priest went beyond his lawful authority and the communicant allowed him that privilege....If the communicant did not follow the directive, he would not be acting in disobedience...because the priest does not have the authority to demand the standing posture during the reception of Holy Communion. The priest would be acting outside his legitimate bounds, and the communicant would have no obligation to 'obey.'" The same type of abuse of authority comes into play when a priest or religious education teacher instructs communicants they must receive in the hand and may not receive on the tongue. I know of a parish in Maryland where this was routinely demanded by the pastor for First Communicants. This is a serious violation of his authority as well as a violation of Canon Law.

More and more today it's essential for Catholics to understand the nature of obedience and legitimate authority and to know their rights. Last May when Notre Dame police ordered pro-lifers off what is an open campus, similar to a small town, simply because they were carrying signs showing aborted children or pushing baby strollers with dolls covered in stage blood, were they disobedient for refusing to comply? I don't think so. Under the first amendment of our Constitution people cannot be discriminated against due to the content of their speech. Since Notre Dame allowed others to carry pro-Obama and pro-Fr. Jenkins signs on campus they could not legitimately discriminate against others just because they found the content of their signs objectionable. It will be interesting to see what happens in court as the cases are heard, but I do not think those who refused to comply with the order to leave campus were "disobedient" according to Gray's article. Sidewalk counselors, videographers attending gay pride parades, protesters, etc. are all subject to abuse by over-vigorous authorities violating their boundaries.

I'll close with one personal example. About ten years ago I set up a pro-life table at my polling place. I was the proper distance from the entrance so I wasn't violating any election rules. However, someone complained about the graphic pictures and the fetal models and an election official came out, ordered me to put everything away, and called the police. The responding officer told me if I didn't remove the "offensive" materials, I'd be arrested. I complied, but went home and called the American Center for Law and Justice who telephoned the polling place. The election officer backed down (actually apologized) and I put my materials out again. Had I refused to comply I would not have been disobedient. Rather I would have been challenging the boundaries of their authority which they clearly abused. More and more today, Catholics in the public square need to know and understand God's law, the nature of obedience and legitimate authority, and the limits and boundaries of that authority. Only then can they make intelligent choices and act in ways that are truly just and prudent and will help us, as Gray says, "freely choose to exercise the virtue of obedience and gain merit directed to our salvation."

Faith and Eucharistic Miracles: My Lord and My God

Fulton Sheen once said that those who have problems with faith almost always have a problem with the Eucharist. The center of our Catholic faith is Jesus Christ really present in the tabernacles of the world under the appearances of bread and wine. Jesus walked the earth (past tense), but He continues to live among us on the earth (present tense) through His divine presence. That belief is the fundamental reality of our faith

But God never asks for blind or mindless faith. When He walked with the apostles He gave testimony to Himself through His miracles. And throughout the centuries He has continued to do that even down to the present day.

So if you have doubts about the faith, study the Eucharistic miracles. If you have trouble believing that Christ is really present in the host, study the Eucharistic miracles. Look into the eyes of Christ and hear him say, as He did to Thomas, "Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe." What other response can one have to Jesus, but "My Lord and my God!"

Visit the Vatican exhibit: The Eucharistic Miracles of the World

And watch thees videos about a Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina:

Oh, for PETA's Sake!

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) makes me laugh, in a head-shaking way. They also turn my thoughts to satire. One problem though: when an organization is that ridiculous, they are beyond satire. Their reality is sillier than anything one could make up.

PETA claims "compassion even for the smallest and least of animals." In fact, they went ballistic when President Obama killed a pesky fly on his jacket. (Hey, Mr. President, we agree on something. Flies are dirty and I don't want them around; I'll happily loan you my flyswatter.) And yet, PETA has no sympathy for unborn babies. (Perhaps if they thought of them as puppies or kittens...) Not only does PETA have no position on abortion, but they dare to call pro-lifers hypocritical, but not just hypocritical. It is "loathsome" and "grotesquely hypocritical" that we don't oppose abuses in the chicken industry.

Actually, PETA just uses these things as a way to promote the vegetarian lifestyle. I doubt if there is a method of slaughtering animals, no matter how humane, that would garner their approval. How dare any of us eat an animal, experiment on one, or wear products made from one. The fact that many cures have arisen from animal experiments and studies is just too darn bad. Die, people, and stop cluttering up the planet.

The most grotesque form of child-killing doesn't deserve even a peep of protest from PETA. It's that fried egg in the egg mcmuffin that raises their ire along with the "hypocrisy" of those carniverous pro-lifers who won't go vegetarian. PETA, of course, is not guilty of any hypocrisy. Their compassion just doesn't extend to the animal species, homo sapiens.

Is Sarah Palin Down and Out?

There's a great post on Sarah Palin at Political Brambles. Take a look at Ray's comments and also his assessment of Ann Coulter's view of the Palin decision to step down from the governor's office. It makes a lot of sense if one is thinking about others instead of oneself. Sarah Palin apparently scares the pants off the left or they wouldn't spend so much ink on her. Read what David Kahane says about Palin at National Review online. As one blogger put it: this is David Kahane channeling a democratic operative. It shows up the democrats for what they are -- a bunch of thugs. But we've known that for a long time. Remember when Ted Kennedy and his mob turned Robert Bork's name into a verb during his nomination hearings to the Supreme Court? One of the most competent jurists in the country was denied a seat because he was a constitutionalist and they hated him for it. The left launched a fear-mongering nuclear attack on his character and whipped their supporters into a frenzy.

Remember the similar attempt to conduct a "high tech lynching" to deny Clarence Thomas a seat on the court? Anita Hill made accusations that were unprovable and conflicted with her actions, for example following Thomas when he left the Department of Education to go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill became the darling of the left for her slander.

The thuggery goes on (think ACORN). Sarah Palin is just its latest victim. But a lady who can dress a moose is up to facing a bunch of thugs in pin-striped suits.

Unfortunately for the thugs, many in the country are starting to wake up and they're armed with righteous anger and common sense. The 2,000 tea parties on July 4th sent a shot across the bow and Obama's dropping popularity illustrates that the sleeping giant is starting to stir. In many cities, thousands turned out to protest. And a national tea party is scheduled for September 11-14 in Washington, D.C. Get your teacups ready!

Papal Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, available online

You can download Pope Benedict's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate on the papal website. I plan to read most of it tonight at my weekly hour of Eucharistic adoration. I'm sure studying it in the Real Presence of Our Eucharistic Lord can't help but increase my understanding.

I've only read the introduction, but I'm excited at what Pope Benedict is articulating. Charity and truth, he says, are so intimately connected they cannot be separated. When charity is divided from truth it "degenerates into sentimentality." The relativism that results is a "fatal risk" threatening love that distorts it to the degree "it comes to mean the opposite."

We can certainly see this in the abortion debate where those promoting "choice" deny the biological truth of life's beginning. Their "charity" toward women is cold indeed, based on lies and distortions. And so the reality becomes "the opposite," not love but hatred for the unborn child in the womb who, even when fully developed and easily recognizable as a member of the human family, is treated as so much trash. The end result for the woman is hatred and rejection of both her unborn baby and her very self. Her fertility and her natural gift of nurturing become a curse rather than a blessing. Self-hatred is the result. That explains a lot, for example radical feminism's strident anger, its connections to lesbianism, and its sublimation and hatred for all things feminine.

But back to the pope's introduction - in the social sphere, the pope says, truth is essential not only to establishing a just society but a charitable one. "Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is 'mine' to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is 'his', what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting. I cannot 'give' what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice....justice is inseparable from charity, and intrinsic to it."

Thus, charity begins with justice, but never ends there. In the broader context it desires "the common good" which "is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized." The pope makes it clear that the Church does not interfere "in the politics of States." But instead she has a "mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance" which is at the "service of truth." Charity, truth, and justice -- a subject worth a lifetime of reflection.

To be continued.