I'm tired of relativism. Most problems in life present us with a question that must be answered yes or no. That's it. Really. We cloud issues with externals to make it nearly impossible to see this but that doesn't change the truth.
There may be a whole series of questions surrounding any given problem but they can always be reduced to one core question, the answer to which all the other questions depend on. This is especially true in matters of religion.
This is America and you can worship any way you want. I certainly don't care. Really, the only thing that's important is whether what you believe is true. Not true to you or true to your circumstances; not true because of the particular political cause you follow or the time period you live in. Just the simple yes or no answer to the question, is it true?
The answer to your question must generate a response. In computers they call this an if-then statement. If "a" is true then "b" is the result. This process then cascades through the program. We know "b" is true, now what? This can lead to a myriad of solutions and questions but the fact is that they all relate to a central truth, "a".
I spend a lot of time talking to people about religion. Most of them suffer the same problem. They have a set of beliefs based on doctrines they've accepted for a variety of reasons, perhaps familial or societal, whatever. They seldom seem to ask the central question though; is what they profess to believe true? Not just around the edges where they feel comfortable and agree with their faith but all the way down at the core, at the level of "a". I think this is because most understand, maybe not consciously, but at some molecular level, that an if-then situation exists and they just don't want to open that can of worms.
Because if-then statements require a response to truth. That response has to be logical and proper or the program breaks down into an illogical and dangerous lie. It may be a lie we feel comfortable with but it is a lie none the less and will result in a program creating a result that was not intended and will be damaging to a process the program was designed to support.
Anyone that spends much time at all reading history knows that most of it is based on eyewitness accounts of something that happened long ago. If we're lucky. An awful lot of what we accept as historical fact is in reality cobbled together from evidence that is circumstantial at best. The evidence in some cases is overwhelming and in others, not so much. It is rare to have first person accounts of any ancient historical events. Yet, much of our understanding of history is based on these tenuous links. We make decisions all the time on the best knowledge we have even though that knowledge is far from complete.
The Judeo-Christian religions are the exception to this rule. Between the holy books of Judaism and the writings of the New Testament and the early Church Fathers we have an abundance of historical information to work with. It really is possible, especially in the case of Christianity, to go back to the original sources and read them for yourself. Much more so than in most cases. And archeology is increasingly backing up the stories of the Old Testament and the traditions of Judaism.
All of this gives each of us the opportunity to make a decision. Are the claims of Christianity about the divinity of Jesus true?
More importantly, did Jesus even exist? That is the "a" question. Once that is answered you have to move on to "b", is Jesus God?
And from there the cascade of if-thens begins. But, until each of us answers the foundational "a-b" formula all of our beliefs about religion and faith rest on sand. We're not talking about sports teams here, the Catholics versus the Lutherans or the Methodists against the Baptists. It doesn't matter which team wins as long as the winner is the truth. We're not rooting for our team just because they're our team. We have to belong to team truth, regardless of which team that is. Truth is essential to our salvation, not name brand.
I'm Catholic because the foundational "a-b" question led me to Rome. I'd be somewhere else if some other team was true. But they're not. My life has been radically transformed because of the "a-b" question. The answers have forced me to accept the teachings of the Church and I've had to try my best to live up to them. I believe, based on a whole bunch of historical research that I've done that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church created by Christ who is the Son of God and who did exist and can be proven to have done so in the historical record. I've read the opposing viewpoints, secular and religious and none have been convincing.
Truth is truth and it demands a response. We can shut the program down to avoid responding or we can respond with a lie distorting the program and creating a useless string of distortions and falsehoods. Or, we can answer each simple question as truthfully as possible and then follow the answer to the next logical step until we run out of questions. I don't know about anyone else, but I doubt I'll ever run out of questions. The thing is, every question must relate truthfully and honestly to all the questions that have come before, all the way back to "a".
If it doesn't, if the chain is broken with a lie because the lie is comfortable or convenient, then every answer from that point on will be a lie, progressively expanding and obscuring the truth. I'm seeing this happen in my Church today with the Progressive leadership in the USCCB. It forces me to untangle their assertions to return to the point where they diverged from the truth. Then I can follow the logical and truthful line of if-thens to refute what they say.
Ask yourself the foundational questions about your beliefs; about religion, politics and everything else. Don't accept anything as true because others say it's so. You have to do the research yourself. Most everything we read and see in the media is a lie meant to advance someone's agenda and power. The world is black and white. The grays are created by the forces of evil to confuse us. We can know the truth. It just requires a simple question.
Read the story below and them look at the chart. This chart was generated by the Federal Reserve in Philadelphia. Only one state has seen improvement in economic activity year over year.
How can you reconcile this with all the happy, happy talk from the media and our government about the depression being over and the economy rebounding?
What else are they lying about?
"49 out of 50 U.S. states are still showing less economic activity than a year ago, based on February 2010 coincident economic indicators from the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia. The chart below is organized from top to bottom, from the most growth in economic activity to the largest declines in economic activity.
States like West Virginia (WV), Maryland (MD), Idaho (ID), and Wyoming (WY) are the worst off year over year. Their February 2010 economic activity remained 13.5%, 6.3%, 6.3%, and 6.2% lower year over year. Thus their economies, along with those of another 45 states, all the red ones, are all underwater on an annual basis.
North Dakota (ND) is the only state to currently have a higher level of economic activity year over year. Its February 2010 economic activity was 1.1% higher than February 2009, as shown by the green dot in the chart below.
Moreover, 28 out of 50 states even exhibited less economic activity in February 2010 than just three months earlier (not directly shown below). This means they have been deteriorating most recently as well.
In fact, the chart below is organized from left to right by the change in economic activity in the last three months (February 2010 vs. November 2009).
Thus West Virginia (WV), Maryland (MD), Montana (MT), and Delaware (DE), have seen their economic activity fall since November 2009 the most, given that they are the left-most dots. For example, West Virginia's economic activity fell 3.1% vs. November 2009 (percentage not shown). In contrast, Michigan has done the best most recently, given that it is the right-most dot, rising 1.5% vs. November 2009 (percentage not shown).
Net-net what this tells us is that 49 out of 50 state economies are still underwater on a one year basis, and 28 out of 50 are even still falling vs. November."
"A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.
The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats." Alert Net
"The Vatican heatedly defended Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, claiming accusations that he helped cover up the actions of pedophile priests are part of an anti-Catholic "hate" campaign targeting the pope for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.
Vatican Radio broadcast comments by two senior cardinals explaining "the motive for these attacks" on the pope and the Vatican newspaper chipped in with spirited comments from another top cardinal.
"The pope defends life and the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, in a world in which powerful lobbies would like to impose a completely different" agenda, Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, head of the disciplinary commission for Holy See officials, said on the radio." Google
I can't say whether the Vatican is right or wrong, but only about the ultimate reason for the witch hunt being conducted by the media. While it is demonstrably true that sexual abuse is occurring in many different places, whether schools, other faiths, in pornography or the home I don't see any real effort by the media to attack anything but the Church. This tells me these stories of sexual abuse are not directed towards ending the abuse but destroying the Church. The question is, why?
I believe it transcends any specific teaching. Sure, the left doesn't like the consistent stand the Church has taken against abortion or homosexual marriage. But I don't think this is the core reason for this campaign of subversion. The reason is authority. The Church stands as the last vestige of Christian moral authority on earth with the power to stand in the way of the Satanic goal of the "New World Order". Everything those that follow Marxism have worked for is on the cusp of fruition; central control, redistribution of wealth, the state as the final arbiter of human rights and the enslavement of all mankind. Only the Roman Catholic Church stands as a bulwark against this tide of Satanic subjugation.
This is the reason for the campaign of lies and hate. This is the reason that the Church must fall. Satan cannot get to the center of the Church, her teachings and doctrine, but he can attack the weaknesses of those selected by God to lead us. He can undercut their moral authority and by doing so he can marginalize the truth that is so desperately needed today.
"There are two key types of match inefficiency. One is geographic mismatch. In 2008, the percentage of individuals living in a county or state different than the previous year was the lowest recorded in more than 50 years of data. People may be reluctant to relocate for a new job if the value of their house has declined. In addition, many who would like to move are under water in their mortgage or can't sell their homes.
The second inefficiency is skills mismatch. In simple terms, the skills people have don't match the jobs available. Coming out of this recession there may be a more or less permanent change in the composition of jobs.
Both of these mismatches are contributing to the long term unemployment problem - and the housing bubble was a direct cause of both. Usually people can move freely in the U.S. to pursue employment (geographic mobility), but many people are tied to an anchor (their home). And many workers went into the construction trades and acquired skills that are not easily transferable. Both of these issues make the long term unemployment problem a difficult challenge." Business Insider
This is the absolute perfect description of the situation I find myself in today. The industry that I have worked in all my adult life, construction, will never return, at least in my lifetime, to the state of activity we've known over the last twenty or so years. Where I live the jobs have dried up and they're never coming back. I'd move if I thought I could get hired on somewhere else but doing that would require my wife to leave her job, too. Since she has a really good job with a really good company that wouldn't make any sense at all. Besides, I couldn't sell my house now even if I wanted to. Nothing is selling out where I live and I doubt I could get what it cost me to build it back out of it.
So we've decided that the best course of action is to find something outside construction. I'm not looking to make big money but it has to pay enough to at least be profitable. The deal is, the jobs that are out there are few and far between and most aren't full time. On top of it, the jobs that I do find are generally paying minimum wage and people are lined up around the block to apply for them. And most of the applicants are younger and thus more attractive to employers than I am.
I'm not writing this to whine or complain but just as a way of saying that there is a whole lot of people out here that are just like me. They are never going to be able to make the money they once did and consequently they won't be spending as they once did. All the happy talk and upbeat news of a recovery isn't fact. It can't be. Sure the guys on Wall Street are doing ok, playing around with the money the taxpayers gave them. And some of the white collar world has gotten through this relatively unscathed. But the reality of our current situation is that an awful lot of high paying blue collar jobs have disappeared. It is that part of the middle class that bought cars, boats, big screens and houses that aren't going to be spending money anymore.
For many of us the economic recovery will never happen. That's just a plain, cold fact. The rest of the economy will have to adjust to this, whether it wants to or not.
"The simple truth is that there is no litmus test for being Catholic. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.” (CCC 836) There is room for everyone under that umbrella. There are many ways of living out the Catholic faith. When we disagree with how someone is living out their faith, our best recourse is to pray for them and for ourselves. We are called to love one another. That is the mark of a true Christian. We are all sinners in need of God’s mercy. None of us fully live up to the Christian ideal. Our place is not to judge our Catholic brethren." Catholic Exchange
It appears that our modernist friend above neglected those paragraphs in theCatechismthat put the lie to her assertion; you know, the ones that directly follow the paragraph she quoted:
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
So how many exclusions to the modernist's washed out, gray and meaningless version of catholicism can we find in these two paragraphs?
1. To be a Catholic you must be baptized in the proper form and matter.
2. You must accept all means of salvation given to the Church. No doubts about the real presence on the altar or the efficacy of confession will be allowed.
3. You must accept the authority of the Pope and the Bishops, acting through the Magisterium.
4. Catholics are bound by the profession of faith; the Nicene Creed. You must believe that every word spoken in the Creed is true. No wiggle room is allowed.
5. Even if you have been baptized in the proper form and matter by another church you are not considered Catholic. Your Christian faith is imperfect and will need to be reconciled to the Catholic faith before you can receive the benefits of Christ's salvific action.
While number 5 may seem, I don't know, so unnecessarily divisive to the modernist mind it is after all taught in the Catechism. Unfortunately, our author above overlooked that, too.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
"The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion".
In other words, to the modernist there are no absolutes. One idea is as good as the next and to judge a belief system against the wisdom of the past is archaic and irrelevant. God is not what he is, the eternal "I am who am", but instead is held hostage to the personal beliefs and values of the individual. Modernism is the root of modern liberalism, a system of beliefs that holds the individual has primacy over everything, that he is a free agent with no restraint against his actions or understandings of the world around him.
To the modernist there is only emotion and personal desire. Right and wrong can only be defined in how they work to either restrain or advance the needs of the individual, regardless of the cost to society. Modernism and narcissism share the same basic flaws in their self centered destructive blindness to the truth.
Modernism is a lie and as a lie it is evil. It has infected the Church to such an extent that we now have the homosexual abuse crisis and the USCCB supporting Marxist government initiatives against the clear and consistent teachings of Holy Mother Church. The pews have become empty and why shouldn't they be. So many of the priests of the Church are Modernists at heart and don't believe that what they are teaching is any more true that what the Baptist preacher or Buddhist monk down the street believe. And if the priests don't believe it, them why should the parishioner?
America and the world need to divorce themselves from this fallacy. Truth exists and it IS knowable. We must honestly search to find it and accept it, following it wherever it leads us. Until mankind realizes that there is one greater than themselves and accepts the fact He has created rules that we must follow we will continue to wallow in a cesspool of moral ambiguity and vain-glorious self destruction. Modernism plays to the goals of Satan and those that follow him in designing our "New World Order". Because we no longer believe in objective truth we cannot recognize destructive evil.
We are beginning to reap the crops sown by Modernism. Pray for all of us.
"In a statement issued late on Wednesday, the (New York) Times said its reports were "based on meticulous reporting and documents."
"Some of the particulars were confirmed by the Church, and so far no one has cast doubt on the facts we reported," said the Times in the statement issued by spokeswoman Diane McNulty.
"The allegations of abuse within the Catholic Church are a serious subject, as the Vatican has acknowledged on many occasions. Any role the current pope may have played in responding to those allegations over the years is a significant aspect of this story," the newspaper said." New York Times
The New York Times has now resorted to lying about their lies. Why does anyone even bother with this trash any more?
I have posted below four examples of very serious doubt being cast upon the reporting and the facts at the Times. There are quite a few more. Maybe the Times should have said in their statement that "no one that agrees with us has cast doubt on the facts we reported". At least that would have been one "fact" we could ALL agree on.
I think that I'll stick with Pravda.
"My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
...With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct." Father Thomas Brundage
"...today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting.
In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as “newly unearthed files” to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – “defrock Fr. Murphy.” Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, “not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.”
But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, “He did not address why that had never happened in this case.” Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting “a pass from the police and prosecutors”? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families." Cardinal William J. Levada
"Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:
• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.
• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.
• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).
• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting." Father Raymond J. DeSouza
"Rembert Weakland is the emeritus archbishop of Milwaukee, notorious for having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy the demands of his former male lover. Jeff Anderson is a Minnesota-based attorney who has made a substantial amount of money out of sex abuse “settlements,” and who is party to ongoing litigation intended to bring the resources of the Vatican within the reach of contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Yet these two utterly implausible—and, in any serious journalistic sense, disqualified—sources were those the Times cited in a story claiming that, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, had prevented sanctions against Father Lawrence Murphy, a diabolical Milwaukee priest who, decades before, had abused some 200 deaf children in his pastoral care. This was simply not true, as the legal papers from the Murphy case the Times provided on its Web site demonstrated (see here for a demolition of the Times’ case based on the documentary evidence it made available). The facts, alas, seem to be of little interest to those whose primary concern is to nail down the narrative of global Catholic criminality, centered in the Vatican.
...So, of course, would elementary fairness from the global media. That seems unlikely to come from those reporters and editors at the New York Times who have abandoned any pretence of maintaining journalistic standards. But it ought not be beyond the capacity of other media outlets to understand that much of the Times’ recent reporting on the Church has been gravely distorted, and to treat it accordingly." George Weigel
"The archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, apologized repeatedly Tuesday night for the way his archdiocese handled an abusive priest and he defended the Vatican which has come under fire for not disciplining or defrocking the man.
"Mistakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case," said Archbishop Jerome Listecki at the end of a special holy week mass at St. John's Cathedral in Milwaukee.
"The mistakes were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee."
The now-deceased Murphy is believed to have molested up to 200 boys.
The Vatican says it did not know about the abuse until 20 years after civil authorities investigated and later dropped the case.
However, a recent New York Times story alleged that top Vatican officials, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, failed to act despite warnings from several American bishops.
Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who obtained internal church paperwork, said it "shows a direct line from the victims through the bishops and directly to the man who is now pope."
In his comments Tuesday night, Listecki attempted to shift the blame away from the Pope.
"The Holy Father does not need me to defend him or his decisions," he said. "I believe, and history will confirm, that his actions in responding to this crisis swiftly and decisively and his compassionate response to victims (and) survivors speak for themselves."
Listecki added that measures have now been put in place in his diocese and across the country to protect children from predatory priests.
"Still, we know it is not words, but actions that will demonstrate our resolve," he said. "And, in some ways, regardless of what I say tonight or any other time, our critics will say it is not enough.
"But that cannot and will not prevent me from making every possible effort at moving forward toward healing and resolution with those who have been harmed, and determined to make sure nothing like this can ever happen again." CNN
It looks to me as though, while CNN wants to appear objective in their reporting, they have failed the test once again. As evidence I offer the quotes from the story posted below:
"However, a recent New York Times story alleged that top Vatican officials, including the future Pope Benedict XVI, failed to act despite warnings from several American bishops.
Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who obtained internal church paperwork, said it "shows a direct line from the victims through the bishops and directly to the man who is now pope."
In his comments Tuesday night, Listecki attempted to shift the blame away from the Pope."
The New York Times can allege anything it wants. The question is whether the allegations are true. The statement in the article is misleading because it does not address the question of veracity, it just prints the accusation with no follow up. Then it goes a step further. To lend credence to the accusation from the Times it prints another accusation, again with no follow up. I've read the papers this attorney is referring to and they don't paint the clear and unassailable picture of papal guilt that he would like us to believe they do. You can read them yourself here.
"These priests have been allowed to abuse children for years. And with the man who is now the pope knowing about what Father Murphy alone was doing, and not doing anything about it? He needs to resign. He has no business being in the position he is in," said Donald Marshall, who said he was abused once during one of Murphy's regular visits to the Lincoln Hills School, a juvenile detention center in Irma in northern Wisconsin.
CNN prints an emotional outburst from someone that claims to have been abused as a child accusing the Pope of complicity in a crime that hasn't been proved, and further, by the accounts of those involved and the document trail, he was only tangentially involved in the whole process. His involvement resulted in the case against Father Murphy being reopened by suspending the statute of limitations required by Church law and clearing the way for further action. That was about all he could do. Unless, of course, one believes that the accused in any trial should be considered guilty and then forced to prove his innocence. If you believe that then I suppose you would expect the Pope to act unilaterally and condemn the man. But that isn't how justice works.
It seems to me that, as is usual in these abuse cases, the ones claiming abuse demand justice and expect it to be carried out by the most unjust of methods. They can't have it both ways.
Another question. How come when I watch the news or read the paper I never see the name of the accused splashed all over until an indictment has been handed down. The media seems to always go out of their way to protect the rights of the accused. But not this time.
The media and the attorneys are trying to convict the Pope and by extension the Church in the courtroom of public opinion. They don't really care if there is an indictment or a trial. They are not looking for justice, rather for the destruction of the one institution that stands in the way of complete moral decay.
Funny, but there doesn't appear to be any mention about health care in here. Or any of the other myriad of things that the Congress has used the Commerce Clause to justify.
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause
Randy E. Barnett
The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"-that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted-when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade. University of Chicago Law Review
H/T The Dana Show
"PICKET: Do you believe in the primacy of the Pope over in Rome?
STUPAK: Do I believe in the primacy…can you explain that to me?
PICKET: Well considering the Vatican have in terms of the Catholic religion…
STUPAK: The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation's. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that." Washington Times
OK bishops, it's your turn. Where is your response to this? Will you let this just go by with nary a whimper?
Very few Catholics understand the role of the Church or their faith in their lives, whether at the personal or civic level. Your job, as our shepherds, is to instruct us in the truth. Is the statement by Rep. Stupak true? Because if it isn't and you stay silent on this, you will have given, by default, your imprimatur to a lie.
If you believe this I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It looks like they finally found the lie that everyone can agree to hide behind. If the pro-life Democrats roll over on this it says all I need to know about where their loyalty lies; it's not with the murdered babies.
The Democrats have the votes to overturn the executive order, otherwise it wouldn't be offered.
"House Democratic leaders are struggling to gain the 216 votes they need to win a healthcare vote on Sunday.
House Democratic leaders struggling to gain the 216 votes they need to win a healthcare vote earned two more crucial supporters on Sunday.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) announced she’d support the bill, saying she was convinced it would prevent federal funds from being used for abortion services.
Separately, MSNBC reported that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) would vote for the bill.
Stupak earlier on Sunday had said he was close to a deal with the White House on an executive order on the abortion issue. The order would specify there would be no public funding for abortions in the healthcare bill.
“We are close to getting something done,” Stupak said in an interview with MSNBC. The Hill
"The Roman Catholic Church is “holed beneath the waterline” and may take generations to recover from the sex abuse scandals, according to the first English bishop to speak out on the crisis.
The Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, the Right Rev Kieran Conry, rejected accusations of media bias against the Catholic Church and said the problems of paedophile priests dominating headlines in the UK and across Europe were problems of the Church’s own making.
“The Roman Catholic Church sets itself up to be the great moral authority. When it does fail its own rigid standards, it deserves to be attacked and criticised,” he said." Times Online
Straight (no pun intended) talk from Bishop Conry. Now if the rest of the Church leadership will just be as honest and forthright we can deal with the problem and move on. My guess is though that just as here in America the powers that be will do their best to obfuscate and spin the problem away. It won't work.
"Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much." James 5:16
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity." 1 John 1:9
It really is that simple, isn't it? Confess your sins, ask for forgiveness and undo the damage.
"Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." Matthew 7:7
Isn't this the good news? Isn't this what you have been teaching us? Ask forgiveness and through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross you shall receive it. Then why can't the Church seem to follow it's own teaching? Why are we bombarded here in America with lawyers and hidden abusers in our parishes? Why, if a priest has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of this terrible crime, why can't the Church just admit it, ask forgiveness and do its penance? Even if this means destruction of the physical institution. Don't they trust the promises of Christ?
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Why does the Church leadership have so little faith in the God of creation?
"Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more you, O ye of little faith?" Luke 12:28
Is it because the leaders of the Catholic Church have become too much of the world? Are they more concerned about their place at the table than the souls of their flock?
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13
I don't know the answer; that's for God to understand. What I do know is that something is terribly wrong with the Church. From sexual abuse to the abuse of our rights in the health care debacle, the ability to speak the truth has become almost a forgotten skill.
But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. Matthew 5:37
Just in case the nuclear threat excuse falls by the side we can always use the Al-Qaeda excuse. For all of you on the left that have screamed about the way the Bush administration "lied" us into war in Iraq, it's your guy's turn now.
Will we hear all the screaming this time?
"Iran is assisting al Qaeda by facilitating links between senior terrorist leaders and affiliate groups, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East told Congress on Tuesday.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, also said Iran's nuclear program is facing problems, and as a result, Tehran is not expected to emerge with a nuclear weapon this year.
The exact details of when U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran will have a nuclear bomb are classified, but the timeline for developing a nuclear device has "thankfully slid to the right a bit," he said." Washington Times
"Citing “serious flaws” in the health care bill Bishop Thomas G. Wenski has advocated a genuine reform that protects human life from conception to death. He urged Congress to correct the lack of conscience protections and the possible expansion of abortion coverage in the legislation before the Congressional reconciliation process.
The Bishop of Orlando, Florida, writing in March 10 column for the Orlando Sentinel, said that the U.S. bishops have been involved in health care reform for more than 40 years and believe such care is a basic human right." Catholic News Agency
What is the single largest "serious flaw" in the health care bill? It is the underlying belief, one shared by this Bishop and many others, that health care "...is a basic human right." This is a lie and the Church does not teach it.
The biggest flaw is the fact that the entire enterprise is built on a lie. And who is the father of lies?
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. John 8:44
So using my simple minded carpenters logic I can only come to one conclusion. The "right to health care" is a lie. It is being perpetuated by the USCCB as a statement of truth. They are lying. It is being perpetuated as a statement of truth by many of our elected officials and our President. They are lying. The canard of health care as a "human right" and the entire health care bill are Satanic in origin because they are both based in a lie. Those that continue to state these lies as truth are being influenced by evil and are working towards its ends.
If this bill passes all Americans will be forced, under penalty of law, to pay for the murder of children. There may be some nod to pro life objectives to get the thing passed but in the end it will still cause the death of children. If this isn't a clear indication of the origins of this bill and all of the underlying philosophical supports, I don't know what is.
To understand the connections between the forces of evil and the USCCB I would suggest you go to Real Catholic TV and watch their video about Alinsky and the CCHD. This is the single most comprehensive presentation of facts exposing this connection I have seen to date. Every parish in the country should present this to their parishioners.
So how long did the depression last in the '30's, when the government did almost exactly the same things it's doing now? Why should we believe any recovery is in sight if this crisis dwarfs that one?
"Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the U.S. economic recovery was "extremely unbalanced," driven largely by high earners benefiting from recovering stock markets and large corporations.
Small businesses and the jobless are still suffering from the aftermath of a credit crunch that was "by far the greatest financial crisis, globally, ever" -- including the 1930s Great Depression, said Greenspan in an address to a Credit Union National Association conference." Reuters
Finally, news that makes sense. If more snow and colder weather is a sure indication of global warming then I think it only logical that more layoffs would equal more job creation.
"The number of mass layoffs by U.S. employers edged up in January as manufacturers stepped up job cuts, data showed on Tuesday, but probably not enough to alter views that the economy is on the brink of creating jobs." Reuters
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
Alice: And how do you know that you're mad?
The Cat: To begin with, a dog's not mad. You grant that?
Alice: I suppose so,
The Cat: Well, then, you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad. Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
"The U.S. government must spend its way out of the recession, the Democrats' third-ranking House leader stressed Monday.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, said that trying to find greater savings in the budget, which was released by President Barack Obama this morning, wouldn't help alleviate the recession.
"We've got to make some decisions here as to what's in the best interests of our country going forward," Clyburn said during an appearance on Fox News. "And I think the best interest is to invest in education, control these deficits, while at the same time trying to get people back to work."
"We're not going to save our way out of this recession," the majority whip added. "We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that."
Is it just me or does it seem like Clyburn is talking out of both sides of his mouth? We need to reduce the deficit by increasing spending? Of course, if he was a Republican he would say we need to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes. One looks to government while the other looks to business. Of course, neither look at the root of the problem; self control.
I don't care what the government does to manipulate the economy. We can never take in enough to pay the bills. We could take all of the money from everybody in the country and still not pay the bills. The country is bankrupt.
When a business or an individual goes bankrupt a third party steps in and determines who gets paid and how much. Assets are liquidated to the extent they can be to cover as much of the debt as possible. Some creditors get paid and some don't. When it's over, the person or business is returned back to a financial state that is far more realistic than where they were. And they will stay there for a good long while because hardly anyone will lend them money. They are forced to diminish in size and influence.
A country, because it is a sovereign entity can't go bankrupt in the same way as an individual or business. Bankrupt countries and their economies collapse. If a sovereign state were to accept third party control over its finances it would cease to be sovereign, thus it would cease to exist as an independent state. To retain its sovereignty, its national identity, a country must retain it independence.
An individual or business is considered bankrupt when it can no longer pay its bills, when the money coming in is insufficient to cover the cost of operation. However, it's possible, at least for awhile, to hide this through the use of credit. A bankrupt entity with access to credit can pay bills for a long time using that credit. Obviously this doesn't change the fact that they are bankrupt. It just makes the final collapse that much worse. Because, when the credit finally dries up the debt will be so large that it will be impossible to pay it back, even if all assets are liquidated.
This is the truth that for some reason the American people and our politicians seem to think doesn't apply to our country. But no matter how many times we click together the heels of our slippers and no matter how hard we wish it were different this time, it won't be. Our economy will collapse without MASSIVE cuts in spending. Across the board cuts; no sacred cows. Defense, welfare, healthcare, education, homeland security, FCC, FDA, FDIC, NTSA and everything else. Everything! Or they will be cut for us, through collapse. And if we refuse to make the hard choices right now the chances are that our government will go with them, because a collapse cannot be controlled. We won't have a third party making the choices for us. Because if we do, our country will have ceased to exist.
So what do I think will happen? I think that we will continue to try and spend our way out of the mess we're in. We are using credit cards to live on in the vain hope that things will improve. The truth is that even if things do improve it won't last long because we CANNOT pay our bills. There isn't enough money in the world. America will collapse, probably in the not too distant future.
We don't have to collapse. We can shrink in an orderly and controlled fashion. We can put ourselves through a self imposed bankruptcy court. This would allow us to determine who gets paid and how much. We could determine which assets to liquidate to help retire our debt. And, we could figure out who is just out of luck, the poor guy that thought he made a good loan that won't get paid. Some relationships are more important than others.
We won't be able to influence the world or project power to the four corners of the globe, but we can survive. And most importantly, we could retain our sovereignty, our Constitution and our freedom. We would be forced to return to something much closer to what the Founders designed us to be. We could disentangle ourselves from all of the foreign powers we've cozied up to through the years. We could become truly independent.
We won't shrink because no politician, besides maybe Ron Paul, will speak the truth much less act on it. They'll hide under the covers hoping the problem goes away, emerging only long enough to line their pockets with whatever little bit of wealth they can still find to tax away from us. They are cowards because we are cowards.
So America will collapse.
Pray and prepare because this is all we have left. I don't know when this country will come apart and I don't know exactly how. I just know it's coming because math generally works and the math I'm doing adds up to collapse. We can't afford to live like we do and we will maintain the illusion through the use of credit. The credit is starting to dry up. China is refusing to extend it and the Fed is monetizing our debt. It's just a matter of time.
And Rep. Clyburn will continue to say we can spend our way out.
"International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) recently released its annual performance report for 2008-2009. Despite an economic downturn and a slight decrease in annual income, the abortion industry giant boasts of increased activity across all of its lines of work -- including condom distribution, advocacy and abortion services.
IPPF’s overall income for 2008 was US$119.7 million, down from over $120 million the previous year.
While IPPF's total financial intake dipped, its abortion business boomed. The organization provided almost 428,000 “abortion services” to young people alone, with a staggering 1,134,549 total number of such services – almost double the number from 2007 – across the globe.
Despite an increase in abortion services, IPPF remains unsatisfied with the figure, arguing that "in comparison to other types of services provided by IPPF Member Associations, these figures remain low and indicate that much needs to be done in terms of future investment in this area if IPPF is to meet its objectives of providing women with the choice and right to safe abortion when faced with an unwanted pregnancy."
In the report, IPPF boasts of promoting its abortion agenda among its member associations in traditionally pro-life countries."
And we wonder why we are being punished. We continue to sacrifice our children just as the pagans of old. Instead of offering up our sufferings and joy to the one, true God, we offer up the lives of our young to the god of convenience. The true God says we will be rewarded, through grace, for the good we do and punished for the bad. The false god says there is no reward or punishment, just selfishness and the worship of the false freedom of living a lie. The worship of self as the prime reason for our existence. We live for our own pleasure, to satisfy our every lust and increase our sense of self worth. We are all gods, worthy of worship and honor. Let nothing stand in our way, especially the fruit of our purest pursuit of the self centered gratification of our most base, animal desires.
We deny the part of the true Gods nature that we posses, the ability to be part of the creation of life. We take this gift from the true God and murder it as a sacramental offering to the god of this earth; and the author of our destruction. We worship at the altar of the father of lies, the author of murder and beg for his blessing. We ask for money and power but never wisdom and understanding, for those are the enemy of the false god, the one that would set on the throne of the Creator.
As we enter this new decade we are going to see signs and wonders, just like those of days long ago. We are entering a dangerous time, one which will require a rebirth in the understanding of our place in the world and our responsibilities. The lies that we have accepted as truth are going to be swept away. The comforts and privileges we have come to expect as little gods will be taken from us. We must learn to accept, with humility and grace, the challenges that are put before us. We must learn that there are consequences to our actions. 15 minutes of fun can create a lifetime of responsibility. We have to accept the responsibility for our actions. We can't just kill it and pretend it didn't happen. We are given crosses to bear, not to bury.
It is only through grace and acceptance that we can survive the coming storm. Spoiled children throw tantrums and destroy when they don't get their way; adults accept and adapt. Our childhood had ended and the time of trial is beginning. Look to the true God and not yourself. Ask for the wisdom and patience you will need. We must all work together, through the grace of God for the coming of the new age.
"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth."
1st John 2:18-21
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”
Dante Alighieri
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
Thomas Jefferson
" I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."
Willard Duncan Vandiver
"The issue is, to use a sporting metaphor, whether in the game of life the government shall captain the national team or shall act as referee."
S. Harcourt-Rivington
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Posts
