Pray For The Safe Return Of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho
From the Associated Press
Chaldean archbishop kidnapped in Iraq
BAGHDAD - Gunmen on Friday kidnapped Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Faraj Rahho in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, a provincial police officer said.

The gunmen also killed three people who were with Rahho at the time of the kidnapping after a Mass at a nearby church, said Iraqi Brigadier Gen. Khalid Abdul Sattar, a spokesman for the Ninevah province police.

Chalk Up Another Victory For The Spirit Of Vatican II
"Springtime of The Church" my ass

From The Times of London. The headline says it all; (Emphasis mine)

Catholic Church faces new crisis — Ireland is running out of priests
Ireland is running out of priests at such a rate that their numbers will have dropped by two thirds in the next 20 years
David Sharrock, Ireland Correspondent

Ireland, a country that used to export its Catholic clergy around the world, is running out of priests at such a rate that their numbers will have dropped by two thirds in the next 20 years, leaving parishes up and down the land vacant.

The decline of Catholic Ireland, for decades the Pope’s favourite bastion of faith in Europe, has been regularly predicted, as the economic successes of the Celtic Tiger brought growing secularisation. But new figures have starkly set out the fate of the Irish priesthood if action is not taken by the Church to reverse the trend.

One-hundred and sixty priests died last year but only nine were ordained. Figures for nuns were even more dramatic, with the deaths of 228 nuns and only two taking final vows for service in religious life. (Two... TWO!!??)

Based upon these figures The Irish Catholic newspaper predicts that the number of priests will drop from the current 4,752 to about 1,500 by 2028.Our Lady of Knock, St. Patrick, St. Columcille, St. Kevin, St. Brigid, ora pro nobis.

E Pluribus Handout
Fear Mongering 101

Professor Obama is holding class again. Anyone remember the BO victory speech when he won the South Carolina primary? Remember that drum he kept beating that resonated with so many on the brain-dead Left? You know... his constant braying about how sooooooo many Americans are unable to pay their mortgages. "...or a mortgage they cannot pay."

"...and put [money] in the pockets of struggling homeowners who are having a tough time."And in a Feb 13, 2008 speech in Janesville, Wisconsin;

"We’d also help those who are facing closure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes. And I’d provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit..."

"Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages..."OK, I'm thoroughly frightened to death. THAT many folks are losing their homes, 'eh? Yep... times are tough, but are they really THAT tough?

Apparently not. The Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson just reported to the nation that 93 percent of all mortgages are being paid on time and that less than 2 percent are in foreclosure.

But you'd never know that if you listened to Barack Hussein Obama.

And I thought I'd throw in a bit of an article that I found on The Asia Times via The Brussels Journal. The unflappable Spengler nails it!! Be afraid – be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack [Obama] utters the word “hope”, they instead hear, “handout”. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as “something for nothing”. Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.

Requiescent In Pace To The Brilliant Slob
William F. Buckley, Jr.

One of the great minds in America (and a fine Catholic gentleman, to boot) passed away. I remember as a kid back in the early - mid 70's, watching with fascination, this mumbling, slouching, rumpled... well... slob, just effortlessly dissect liberal after liberal on the old PBS debate series.

For those of you who aren't familiar with his wit and wisdom, here are a few quotes I've compiled. And I've saved the best for last. Enjoy!

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.”

"I think it is the centrality of the assumption that the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Christ. But they all have polisticity, for sure. A lot of people do think that. And if it’s so, then you’d want to say, well, give me a good reason for not joining it? Now, I know there are an awful lot of reasons, awful lot of subtle, theological questions here, but that is the point that is most--that, plus also its general record and the constancy of its performance are morally--I find that pretty impressive. Two thousand years is a long time."

“You cultivate the essential virtues: high purpose, intelligence, decency, humility, fear of the Lord, and the passion for freedom.”

“It had all the earmarks of a CIA operation; the bomb killed everybody in the room except the intended target!”

I get satisfaction of three kinds. One is creating something, one is being paid for it and one is the feeling that I haven't just been sitting on my ass all afternoon.”

“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.”

“The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”

"I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.”

“I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

“The academic community has in it the biggest concentration of alarmists, cranks and extremists this side of the giggle house.”

“Does baloney fear the grinder?”

"Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.”

During a sailboat race from Miami to The Bahamas in 1973, Buckley was declared lost at sea. Asked if he was ever frightened at the possibility of perishing on the high seas, he replied; "No, I just stayed busy emptying champagne bottles, stuffing them with dirty notes I'd written to Fidel Castro, and casting them into the ocean".

Why Has America Been In This War Zone For Over 100 YEARS!!??
Answer me THAT Senator McCain!!

It depends on which idiot liberal politician you listen to... one stated that McCain claimed that "we'd be mired in Iraq for 100 years". BTW, McCain never said that. He stated that there could be an American presence in Iraq for possibly a hundred years. Big difference. A presence could be no more than a couple of battalions.

And how about that one commercial that says that McCain said that he'd be there for a THOUSAND years? Where'd they come up with that number? If they mean any reference to Christendom's fight against islam... new flash -- that war has already been taking place for 1,400 years. And it very well may take another thousand.

But as far as American troops being in a war zone, former or otherwise, I won't bring up the 60+ years that we've had combat troops in Germany, Japan and Italy... I won't bring up the 55+ years that we've had combat troops in Korea. No, nothing as obvious as that.

I want to know why the Defeatocrats haven't gone ballistic over American combat troops being in this certain Theater of Operations for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS?

When will our boys come home? *Wringing of hands!!*

How much longer must we be bogged down in this quagmire? *Beating of breast!!*

Allow me to be the first to scream from the rooftops --

The Spanish-American War ended in 1898!



BRING HOME THE TROOPS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY!!

TAGIAIAIC*, Part II
*Things Are Getting Interestinger And Interestinger At Immaculate Conception
Helmet tip (again) to Mr. & Mrs. NYPD

The other day I posted about a certain Father Friar Doctor Mister Daniel P. Sulmasy, who will be giving a lecture on "end of life issues" at Immaculate Conception parish in Durham, NC within the next week or so.

Long story short... what really caught my attention, is that Father Friar Doctor Mister Daniel P. Sulmasy is also a lil' sumpthin' called a "Soros Faculty Scholar". That's right... THAT George Soros. The pro-abortion/pro-euthansia/pro-physician assisted suicide George Soros.

Well, some more "interesting" information just got forwarded to me. I'll cut to the chase --

Here is a link to a professional paper that Father Friar Doctor Mister Daniel P. Sulmasy published entitled Are Feeding Tubes Morally Obligatory?. Now I'm no highly trained MD by any stretch of the imagenation, but even a caveman like me could understand this article. It seems to be pretty pro-life to me.

Now here's where things get interestinger and interestinger. This is the link to an op/ed from the North Country Gazette (New York state) that pretty much slams a number of the claims made by Father Friar Doctor Mister Daniel P. Sulmasy.

I'm going to post just a bit of the op/ed piece... it's obvious what claims are being challenged. Here's what I need from you, fellow Bloglodytes. If there are any of you out there in the medical field, I would sure appriciate your take on this quasi-back and forth. Thank in advance! (Emphasis mine) OpEd - Whose Burden Was Terri Schiavo?
By Eric Paulos Daniel P. Sulmasy, the author of "Are Feeding Tubes Morally Obligatory? which appeared in the January 2006 online edition of St. Anthony Messenger, seems to make that classic leap that many propagandists are guilty of with respect to Terri Schiavo. He's comparing ventilators to feeding tubes and assuming the existence of a burdensome existence where no proof exists.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the ACLU, Compassionate Choices, or Choices in Dying have their own shills that they send into the media departments of religious communities? My money would be on Mr. Sulmasy to fill the assignment if this were so.

Sulmasy begins his argument by citing 4th Century A.D. St. Basil the Great, in the Long Rules with this quote: "Whatever requires an undue amount of thought or trouble or involves a large expenditure of effort and causes our whole life to revolve, as it were, around solicitude for the flesh must be avoided by Christians".

Hmm. Sulmasy seems to be building his argument, and the one he has for Terri Schiavo seems to come with cement shoes. Whose burden was Terri?

Next, Mr. Sulmasy introduces Friar Francisco de Vitoria who apparently penned this thought before his death in 1560: "I would say that if the depression of spirit is so low and there is present such consternation in the appetitive power that only with the greatest of effort and as though by means of a certain torture can the sick man take food, right away that is reckoned a certain impossibility, and therefore he is excused..." (De Temperantia, #1).

So on whose authority exactly are we going to accept the notion that Terri didn't want to eat or drink? This is exactly the same kind of foolish non-sequiteurian logic that would conclude that if you cut off all the legs of a frog, that the frog must have just lost its motivation to jump. Terri had tremendous motor physical and neurological damage that prevented her from eating, not a lost appetite due to depression! This author is manufacturing spin in its worst form! Let's see what else Sulmasy has to say...

Sulmasy now brings up a quote Pope Pius VII in 1957 on the subject of the ventilator: "But normally, one is held to use only ordinary means-according to circumstances of persons, places, times, and culture-that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another. A more strict obligation would be too burdensome for most men and would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends. On the other hand, one is not forbidden to take more than the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health, as long as he does not fail in some more serious duty..." (The Pope Speaks, 4:4, 1958).

Two things, Sulmasy: One, a ventilator is not the same as a feeding tube. The gastronomy tube, in its simplicity, has a profoundly longer history than the ventilator.

Finally, Mr. Sulmasy attempts to deliver the knockout blow with this revelation from the 2004 Canadian Catholic Bioethics Conference:

"The papal speech needs to be understood in the context of the Catholic tradition. The words 'in principle' do not mean 'absolute' in the sense of 'exceptionless' but allow consideration of other duties that might apply. Therefore, what the papal statement really means is that, for permanently unresponsive patients who are not otherwise dying, tube feeding should be presumed to be ordinary and proportionate (and as such, morally obligatory) unless its use would conflict with other grave responsibilities or would be overly burdensome, costly or otherwise complicated." (The complete text of this statement has been published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4 [2004], pp. 773-82.)

Pop quiz! Where does official Catholic policy originate from? Choice A: Toronto, Canada; Choice B: Vatican City, Rome. If you picked choice B, you are correct. Religious policy is handed down from the Vatican and the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Pure religious policy, in its strictest sense, is largely respectful of papal proclamation. What happens in Toronto is all well and good, but makes for conversational curiosity only. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize policy that is obtained by consensuses obtained during bioethics conferences in Canada.Like I said, that was only some of the article, and from that, you can figure out what Sulmasy asserted.

Make your own call, folks. But I sure would like your thoughts.

I Know That Things Weren't Peaches & Cream Before Vatican II...
But were they THIS bad!!??

Interesting article from The Catholic News Agency. Amazing what 40+ years of watered-down theology, radical ecumenism, spiritually castrated Roman Protestantism, and just flat out shitty catechesis hath wrought.

Here's some of the article. As the card players of old use to say - read 'em and weep. (Emphasis mine)
Survey finds one-tenth of Americans used to be Catholic

Washington DC, Feb 25, 2008 / 08:26 pm (CNA).- The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released the results of a detailed new study of the religious affiliation of the American public. The results reveal... that one-third of Americans who were raised Catholic no longer identify themselves as such, and that the outflow of these Catholics is stabilized by Catholic immigrants.

The survey, based on interviews in English and Spanish of 35,000 adults, found that more than a quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood. Including changes between Protestant affiliations, 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliation, moved from no affiliation to affiliation with a particular faith, or dropped any affiliation to a specific religious tradition.

Though the Catholic proportion of the population has held steady at one fourth of the U.S. population, approximately one-third of the survey respondents who were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic. According to the Pew Forum report, this means around ten percent of all Americans are former Catholics.I thought Vatican II was suppose to bring truckloads of Protestants to The Faith. Hell, we can't even keep what we've got. If this is the "Springtime of The Church"... I'd hate to see winter.

The Bishop Plays Football
Yep, another end-run around Church Teaching

Just when I thought that things were turning around in my old hometown diocese of San Diego... I read the fine print. Looks like Bishop Brom is up to his old tricks of bait and switch.

As I was reading this article from The California Catholic Daily, I was actually heartened about what I was reading. Believe it or not, I was going to do a glowing post on what Bishop Brom has ordered. That is, like I said, until I read the fine print.

Here's some of the article; (emphasis mine) Candidates we cannot “take seriously”
San Diego diocese’s voter’s guide gives little leeway in voting for candidates who support “intrinsic evils”

The Office for Social Ministry of the diocese of San Diego came out with a voter’s guide this month. The guide, "As a Catholic … How Do I Decide?" says it “does not tell an individual how to vote,” but helps “users form their consciences so that they can make sound moral choices.” The guide has several sections, each dealing with a different area of political and social concern: “Protecting Human Life,” “Marriage and Family,” “Protecting Immigrants and Refugees,” (I wonder if 2241 of the Catechism was even mentioned? You know, the section that says that a nation has the right to control immigration, and that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of their new nation. No, it wasn't.) “Protecting Workers and Working Poor Families,” “Promoting Health Care,” “Safe and Affordable Housing,” “Protecting Families from the Harm of Pornography,” and “Promoting Global Solidarity. ("Global Solidarity"? Will everyone join me in a rousing chorus of L'Internationale?)

“Protecting Human Life” is by far the longest section of the guide. To the question, “Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who supports abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research, that are clearly intrinsic evils?” the guide first responds with the November U.S. bishops’ document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship -- but then itself gives a more uncompromising explanation of it. “A candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support,” said the bishops. Immediately following this statement, the San Diego diocesan guide adds, “Put simply, protecting human life is paramount in the political arena, and some evils are so profound and egregious that a reasonable person can not take seriously the candidacy of a person who allows or fosters them.” (I sure was impressed by what I had read so far. Until I read the next paragraph...)

The guide gives the example of a candidate “that was right on every issue except for one. Let’s say, because a candidate was so focused on the safety of constituents, that he or she supported and would work for the use of capital punishment for anyone over the age of 16 that was involved in gang membership or gang criminal activity. “Would or could a voter take seriously a politician supporting this position no matter how ‘right’ he or she was on a host of other issues? Obviously not,” says the guide.
Anyone remember Five Non-Negotiables? In case anyone forgot, they're:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual “Marriage”

And no, you don't have to do a double-take. The death penalty isn't listed, no matter what the Office of Social Ministry of San Diego says. Why do they have to do this collusion... this purposeful heavy dose of authentic Catholic teaching, and insert an outright falsehood giving it the impression that it IS authentic Catholic teaching? Please... stop trying to equate helpless unborn children with sadistic killers.

By the way... how many millions has Bishop Brom had to pay out for protecting rapists? And no, I'm not denying the legitimacy nor the validity of Bishop Brom's episcopacy. I just think he's pissed away any and all credibility he ever had. If Bp. Brom REALLY wanted to bring back any credibility to the teaching authority emanating from the Diocese of San Diego... he's step down and allow another to clean-up the disaster he's created.

He's legitimate, just not credible. Kinda like Arius until he finally went off the deep end.

Greatest Movie Line
EVER!!




Well, on second thought... no, this one's still the king --

The Abortion That The Catholic Church DOES Authorize
This is basic stuff here

I just read an interesting article from The Catholic News Agency, under the headline: Vocations must be sown in children and young people, says the Pope

Well, of course vocations must be sown in children and young people! But as anyone with eyes and the mental ability to count can attest to the numbers of priestly ordinations and those taking Religious vows have been dropping like a stone the past few decades*.

Like just about everything else encompassed by the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II", the primary goal of such is the destruction of not only the Catholic Identity, but everything Catholic. Kind of like the old saying - "We Have Met the Enemy and They Are Us".

And there's an even older saying - "Vocations Are Born at the Foot of the Altar". With that said, what the hell sense does it make to have "Altar Girls"? For a couple thousand years, the foot of the altar is where priestly vocations were born... until recently. And it's a big shocker why ordinations have taken a nose dive?

But anyhow, not only has the introduction of Altar Girls (or Altar Servers, or Altar Entities of Undetermined Gender... or whatever the hell they're called) feminized serving so it's now "a girl thing" and very few boys even want to do it, but it's also completely unfair to the girls that DO serve. Why are we placing these girls into a position to aspire to something that they can never attain?

The entire notion of Altar Girls is nothing more than a conception that must be killed before it can reach full development. An ordinational abortion, if you will.

If there's going to be the consistent blurring of the lines for the role of men and women in The Church... why don't we just cut through the bull shit and authorize this? Hell, we're halfway there already.

*Yes, there is a hiccup as of late. Gee, could it be because of the slow but steady return to orthodox Catholicism? Hmmmm...

Things Are Getting Interestinger And Interestinger At Immaculate Conception
This gives me pause
Helmet tip to Mr. and Mrs. NYPD

The very same Immaculate Conception parish in Durham, NC who've I just posted about having their pagan "Ecological Stations of the Cross", is now hosting Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy (who also happens to be a Franciscan Friar) who will soon be delivering a lecture entitled "Ethical Issues in Care at the End of Life".

Well, that sounds like good stuff, doesn't it? Maybe not. As they say in the furniture delivery business - back the truck up.

Turns out that the good Friar is also saddled up with an organization known as Project on Death in America. Ohhhh.... that sounds scary, doesn't it? Golly, I wonder what PDIA is all about? Well, I did some research, and I've found the following;
In 1994, the Open Society Institute (OSI) launched a new grant making program called the Project on Death in America (PDIA). Its goal was ambitious: to help transform the experience of dying in the United States. OSI Founder and Chairman George Soros established the project...Huh, what? Did I just read "George Soros? THAT GEORGE SOROS!!??

Here's just a taste of what I've found out;
...Soros began giving money to start the Project on Death in America (PDIA), whose purpose is “to understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement through funding initiatives in research, scholarship, the humanities, and the arts, and to foster innovations in the provision of care, public education, professional education, and public policy.” OSI remains a strong supporter of PDIA; in 2000 the foundation contributed a three-year $15 million grant to sustain its mission.

Soros’ goal is to transform American attitudes toward death by changing public attitudes about physician-assisted suicide. His financial backing has helped drug legalization proponents gain a new respectability, and he aims to do the same for supporters of euthanasia. PDIA’s large annual budget —$5 million— has helped it achieve prominence. PDIA director Kathleen M. Foley has testified before Congress on physician-assisted suicide,and PDIA-linked physician Susan Block, MD, a psychiatrist with the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, last year argued in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine that “physician assisted death may be an acceptable option of last resort.”Ok, now back to Friar Sulmasy. I did some individual-specific research on him, and happily, I've found that in the public statements and papers he's published, he's come out squarely against both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

But I'm still bothered by the fact that he's a Soros Faculty Scholar. Also, how can someone who has spoken so eloquently against euthanasia and PAS ever have been aligned with the militantly and radically pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia/pro-PAS George Soros? I find that troubling.

After all, would a Jew even contemplate a scholarship from The American Nazi Party? Hardly. Would a Black accept a leadership position offered from The Klan? I kinda doubt it. Would a Catholic ever be professionally recognized as a Soros Faculty Scholar? Oops, I think we already know the answer to that. Hey... if you lie with dogs, you're going to get fleas.

I can only hope that the information's out there and I just haven't found it yet, that Friar Sulmasy has renounced any and all connections to everything that's originated from that dispicable excuse for a human being, Josef Goebbles wannabe, George Soros.

I Know I'm Not Suppose To Talk Bad About A Priest...
But this dumb-ass doesn't even know the basics

I ran across a rather nasty little article, undoubtedly written by an equally nasty little person. Here's some of the article from The Palm Beach Post; (emphasis and comments mine) CATHOLIC FAITHFUL HURRY TO GET FULL PARDON FOR SINS
By LONA O'CONNOR Palm Beach Post Religion Writer

To a devout Catholic, a plenary indulgence is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card, bypassing the long and unpleasant wait in Purgatory and opening wide St. Peter's gates. In December, in a rare move, Pope Benedict XIV announced a plenary indulgence for those who visit the shrine at Lourdes, France, celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. (by the way, this particular indulgence was announced by Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Benedict XIV. She's only off by 250 years and a whole buncha Popes.)

Among the fine print of the papal announcement is a clause that also allows the faithful who cannot travel to France to get the indulgence -- but only until Monday, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes.

The Rev. Francis Reardon, pastor of Lourdes parish, is deliberately keeping the service low key rather than focusing on the indulgence, which has been a touchy subject in religious history. "I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not advertising it as such," Reardon said. "I don't mean to be irreverent, but that's what got Martin Luther going."

Indulgences, which still exist in the Roman Catholic Church, remove some of the suffering imposed on sinners. A plenary indulgence is a full pardon for all sins.OK, it's obvious that this idiot O'Connor woman has no idea of what indulgences really are. Nowhere in Catholic Teaching does it state that indulgences give pardon for sins. But this bonehead, Father Reardon, is such a ecclesiastical simpleton that he doesn't even know what indulgences are. And to make matters worse, he automatically equates them to something evil and wrong. As my dear old, departed dad use to say; "you gotta be shittin' me." *Followed by the requisite slowly shaking of head in disgust.*

Alrighty, let's get down to the basics... of the many reasons that the theological thug, martin "sin boldly" luther, revolted against Christ's Church, many present day always scream that the "selling of indulgences" was the main reason. Actually, the selling of indulgences was waaaaaay down the list. Number 35 to be precise.

And in all historical accuracy, it wasn't the entire Church that was doing this... just a corrupt handful. And I do believe a lil' sumpthin' called The Catholic Counter-Reformation brought that nonsense to an end, posthaste. You know, in light of The Catholic Counter-Reformation, that kinda nullifies the "selling indulgences" argument, doesn't it? Sure does. And luther should have recanted his revolt at that time, but he didn't. Thus proving that he was nothing more than a garden-variety heretic.

Next, what exactly is an indulgence? Here is a simple, yet excellent explanation of what exactly indulgences are, and more importantly... aren't.

Long story short, when we're forgiven of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, we very well may be forgiven of those sins, but we won't be fully cleansed of them until our penance is completed. And as we all know, penance could be as little as a handful of heartfelt prayers, or something that could take months or even years to complete. Possibly even an entire lifetime, such as turning ourselves over to the police and facing the consequences for a crime committed, etc.

Anyhow, if we die with sins on our souls already forgiven, but not yet cleansed - that's where Purgatory comes into play. It's the final cleansing... a burning away... a purging. By no stretch of the imagination is it "a second chance" as many (including Catholics) believe.

Look at it this way, if I were to cheat on my wife, my penance would be a sight more than just a handful of Our Fathers and Hail Marys. It's a penance that would take years to complete. Not only would I have to spend the rest of my life never cheating on her again, I'd also have to spend the rest of my life making it up to her and to God as well. Anyhow, I've just been forgiven of that sin, but as I'm driving home, I get killed in a car crash. In the words of Sonny Corleone, badda beep, badda boop, badda bang... Purgatory. I've been forgiven, but still have the stain of sin on my soul. That whole Faith and Works stuff.

Partial Indulgences remove a portion of the penance I must perform, usually by reciting heartfelt prayers or performing Acts of Charity, etc. Plenary (full) Indulgences cleans our souls of all required penance up to that point in time. Obviously, something major is required for a Plenary Indulgence. Such as taking part in any public or private devotion so deemed by The Holy Father.

So for those of you who weren't quite sure of what indulgences are, you're now smarter than a certain newspaper reporter, and a priest down Florida way.

Ecological Stations Of The Cross In The Diocese Of Raleigh
An outright and deliberate challenge to the local bishop

I was told today that a very... interesting, shall we say... post appeared on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog. To read the entire post, click here.

Interesting, indeed. And in my very own diocese! My, my. Isn't this just ducky? Being a betting man, I'll wager my paycheck that Bishop Burbidge was totally blind sided by this outright paganism. And again... being a betting man, I'll wager another paycheck that His Excellency will do the right thing.

But in the meantime, fight the urge to puke while you read all about those wacky Franciscans worshipping Mother Earth, praying to the Earth Saints, and all of us just finding out that The Body of the Suffering Christ is really just the suffering earth. As my distant Irish cousins would say, "what a boonch of foogin' eejits!"

(Father Zuhlsdorf's original emphasis and comments retained)
Once in a while I get something via e-mail and I am not quite sure if someone isn’t having me on.

A parishioner of at Immaculate Conception Church in downtown Durham, NC, a Franciscan run parish known for its emphasis on social justice, sent my an e-mail detailing something rather bizarre which I cannot help but write about.

This evening, I attended the Stations of the Cross [at Immaculate Conception], and the liturgy that was utilized was called The Ecological Stations of the Cross—an adaptation of a liturgy composed by the Office of Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation, of the Franciscan Province of St. Barbara. Simply stated, the liturgy was horrendous. I don’t even know where to begin in detailing its shortcomings. As just a few examples, within the context of the liturgy, a prayer was directed to mother earth, the earth was compared to our crucified Lord, the earth’s care for humanity was offered as an analogy to the Blessed Mother’s care for Christ, Jesus’ crucifixion was reduced to the level of species extinction, mention was made of the Buddhist myth of a life-giving serpent under the Bodhi tree, and a reference to the Nietzschean notion of eternal return was set forth.

As you can see, this isn’t simply sloppy liturgy; this is outright paganism.

I have already written the pastor of my parish and am also in the process of composing a letter of complaint to my Bishop, the Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge. My question for you, Father, is this: does the egregious nature of this liturgy warrant taking the matter to a higher authority, perhaps even to the Congregation for Divine Worship?

Excerpts from the Ecological Stations of the Cross

Second Station: Jesus Embraces the Cross
(Earth as Suffering Servant—Isaiah)

Meditation:
Mother Earth, you are alive with Christ’s Spirit. You, like Christ, are the suffering servant. You serve all Earth’s creatures so splendidly and graciously, but we often treat you as nothing more than a storehouse of goods. May we awaken to see both your suffering and your generosity. May we only harvest wood from your forests in ways that are sustainable and may we leave your ancient, mystical, old-growth forests to grow in peace.

Third Station : Jesus Falls the First Time
(The Poor and Unjust Systems)

Meditation:
Christ, we see you alive in all creation, and know your love extends in a special way to the poor and suffering. Like you, the poor fall so often under unjust social systems that strangle their right to good housing, health care and meaningful work. May we awaken to see how our economic systems and multinational corporations could be made more just. May we create just systems in solidarity with all peoples and nature.

Fourth Station: Jesus Meets His Mother, Mary
(We Meet Christ in Mother Earth)

Reflection:
Just as Jesus met and was comforted by his mother, so too can we all be comforted by the compassionate care of our Mother Earth. Christ’s love pulses through her, and we are truly welcome and at home on Earth. May we be aware of the healing, nurturing love with which she cares for us and all creation. May we awaken to know Christ’s wisdom and care through nature. May we, like Jesus, know our sacredness as children of God and as children of Earth.

Fifth Station: Simon from Cyrene Helps Jesus
(Earth Saints)

Reflection:
The Earth must stand up under the cross of global warming, water pollution, chemical and radiation poisoning, strip mining and deforestation. There are those who stand up for her to alleviate the burden. Earth Saints like Rachel Carson, Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingham, Chico Mendes and John Muir have felt the Earth’s pain and offered their service to her. May we too respond to alleviate the burden of the Christ of Creation, and be of service to our sacred Earth Mother.

Eighth Station: Jesus Speaks to the Women of Jerusalem
(Women and Education, Hunger, Poverty and Sustainable Population Growth)

Reflection:
Christ, you look with compassion on women: the birth-givers, the nurturers, and the comforters. May we commit to sustainable world population growth by bringing women out of poverty; by providing adequate nutrition, health care and education, and by honoring the lives of all women.

Point to Ponder:
Unsustainable population growth is a direct result of poverty, hunger and illiteracy, especially for women. Without food, economic security, and education, no amount of family planning programs will curb high birth rates.

Ninth Station: Jesus Falls the Third Time
(Redemption for All Creation)

Reflection:
Christ, you created all things, and you liberate all life as well: human, hummingbird, whale, Sequoia, and bacteria. We cry out to you to save our Earth, [Have we prayed for our souls or forgiveness of sin yet?] and you answer that your liberation of Earth arises within each of us. May we understand that your hands are our hands, that your love can work through each of us, that your suffering body is our suffering Earth. [?] May we become deeper lovers of you by loving each other, by loving the world.

Eleventh Station: Jesus is Nailed to the Cross
(Cosmic Christ is Not Embraced)

Reflection:
Christ of the cosmos, we continue to drive the nails when we try to bind you to a cross of small vision. [What the hell is a "cross of small vision"?] We need to see you through the revelation of some thirteen billion years of creative delight we call the cosmos. May we be free of our limited vision of you. May we greet your living abundantly in our lives as revealed in science, literature, cosmology, imagination, and play.

Twelfth Station: Jesus Dies Upon the Cross
(Species Extinction)

Reflection:
Christ, through you is manifested an unaccountable number of species of animals and plants. One of your species, the mysterious serpent bears the curse in the Garden of Eden, while under the Bodhi tree the serpent provides protection and life. [I think this praised the serpent, Satan, whom God the Father cursed for destroying the bond between man and God.] The snake is born of itself anew each time it sheds its skin and is a symbol of eternal return. Each individual of each species is born with your blessing, and makes up the full mosaic of your heart. Our choices have led to the unprecedented death of entire species, and with their loss the universe forever loses a cherished gift. May we through your grace transform ourselves into a culture of life. May we humbly honor the life of every creature and the ecosystems that support them.

Boy, Am I Going To Piss Off A Lot Of People With This Post
...won't be the first time, won't be the last

It's no big shocker to any of us that some very vocal folks of the Jewish persuasion are kinda pissed off at Pope Benedict. But what are we to make of it when a fairly prominent Catholic priest/educator saddles up with them against our own pope?

Here's some of the article from the New Jersey Jewish News; (emphasis and comments mine) ‘Prayer for Conversion’ reinstated by Pope
Jewish leaders fear a step backward in interfaith relations
by Robert Wiener
NJJN Staff Writer
February 21, 2008

Leaders of interfaith dialogue are expressing concern that a Good Friday prayer newly revised by Pope Benedict XVI could set back cordial relations between Catholics and Jews. The Latin-language “Prayer for Conversion of the Jews” urges Catholics to “pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men.” It also asks God to “kindly allow that, as all peoples enter into your Church, all of Israel may be saved.” (Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I find that prayer to be one of the kindest, most charitable things I've ever read)

The pontiff’s action on Feb. 5 reinstitutes a prayer that was dropped from Easter Week liturgy after the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which ended in 1965. Prior to Vatican II, the “conversion prayer” spoke in more controversial language about the “blindness” of the Jews and urged that they “be rescued from their darkness.” (ahhh yes... Vatican II. You know, that's when Catholicism started.)

To Allyson Gall, executive director of the American Jewish Committee’s Metro New Jersey Area, the prayer is “a step backward. This is something that was written in the pope’s own hand. It was not written by an aide. He made a conscious decision he wants the wording this way. That is regrettable.” (Waaaah. Kwitcherbitchen.)

But Gall noted that the prayer is recited only on Good Friday in commemoration of the crucifixion, and its recitation is limited to the small number of Catholic churches where the Mass is celebrated in Latin. “In terms of the actual impact on Catholics or other people, forget about it,” she said. “But the point is, why did the pope do it? Up until now, the impression has been that things have moved along well and there really was a recognition that ‘Jews are Jews. They keep their own covenant, they forever are Jews, and leave them alone. We are not going to try to convert them.’ (And who was the head cheerleader for this bullshit? Pope John Paul II, that's who. Something about "The Jews had their own path to redemption" WITHOUT Jesus Christ? So much for The Great Commission. So much for "no man goes to The Father but through Me.")

“Now you have this little bit of a slip. It is regrettable because it is a step backward, but on the other hand, it is going to impact very few people.”

“This is not what we had hoped for,” said Father Lawrence Frizzell (right), director of the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University in South Orange. “There has been considerable discussion among those of us involved in Jewish-Christian relations,” said Frizzell, who has worked with Gall on interfaith projects. “I don’t know how to interpret this in terms of the larger picture. I would say in terms of people involved in Jewish-Christian relations, this is a disappointment. But I don’t want to say this is a harbinger of things to come.” (Interesting... a prayer that ALL may accept Christ as Lord and Savior is "not what we hoped for" and "a disappointment". I'll bet Jesus is thrilled to bits hearing this.)

However, Alan Brill, a Seton Hall colleague of Frizzell in Judeo-Christian studies and the Cooperman/Ross Endowed Professor in honor of Sister Rose Thering, said that although it may be “much ado about nothing,” he is concerned about the prayer’s future implications. “It does not say anything negative. It does not say the Jews have to convert. It does not imply any problem — just that the Jews should have their eyes enlightened.” (And once you're enlightened, a conversion of the heart takes place. Sheesh... could this guy spin it any harder?) The professor said that the prayer’s inclusion marks “the end of the era of John Paul II, the era of reconciliation (Thank God. The pontificate of John Paul II propelled papal groveling to an art form). A lot of Catholics spent their lives on reconciliation with Jews in light of the Holocaust (What about The Holocaust? Surely he doesn't mean the nearly one million Jews that Pope Pius XII saved, does he?). This is sending everyone back to business as usual. It does not say the Jews are wrong and should convert now, but we lost the momentum of things getting better and better.” (By "better and better", I think he means a watered-down, more gutless Catholicism)From March of 2006, I posted some of the truths concerning the leadership (or lack thereof) during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, and the rush to Canonization coupled with the current craze of everyone calling him John Paul The Great. Here's some of that particular post;
Yes, yes... everyone loved the former Holy Father. But as what? A strong Vicar of Christ... a guiding figure of moral absolutes in an uncertain world... a cuddly, if not somewhat confused but still very cuddly grandfather figure?

I say we pull in the reigns on this idiotic "Insta-Saint, Just Add Holy Water" fad. Are we talking Holy Canonization, or some type of ecclesiastical popularity contest? Sheesh... it took forty years to finally canonize the most recent pope to achieve Sainthood, Pope St. Pius X.

Sorry, Pope John Paul ain't no Pope St. Pius X.

But I digress, I'm dead set against this break-neck speed race for JP 2's canonization. For many reasons, actually. Here are just a couple;

1. What great happened under his pontificate? Other than empty seminaries, empty convents, empty pews, sodomite-rapist "priests", rapist protecting bishops, a Lavender Mafia, Catholic schools closing by the truckload, a majority of Catholics that don't even believe in The Real Presence, etc, etc... gee, I can't think of anything "great" that happened under his watch.

2. John Paul II did produce some utterly brilliant writings. Unfortunately, he was promptly ignored. And to make matters worse, he did absolutely nothing about it. What good is a shepherd who is unwilling (or afraid) to use his crozier?So here's the bottom line of this particular posting: certain Jews (and wimpy Catholic Fifth Columnists) are uber-pissed over Pope Benedict re-writing of the Prayer for Conversion during Good Friday Mass. Oh well... let 'em be uber-pissed. If they want to be obstinate to Christ, that's their call.

But what I find disconcerting, is the one they point to as their champion of "The Salvific Power of Christ Pertains to Everyone but The Jews" is none other than our very own Pope John Paul II. And the fact that they even point to him as their compass point is very, very telling, indeed.

And I'm sure that many will argue that none of this is what Pope JP intended. Know what? That's irrelevant. His actions (or more correctly, inactions) are what caused this turd bloom to blossom and produce bitter fruit in the first place. He's responsible for all this... period.

I'm not trying to slam Pope John Paul, but I find damn little that's Great about any of this. A lot of very bad things happened under his watch, and we Catholics need to quit looking at him and his pontificate through rose colored glasses. We need to face the hard, ugly truth... Pope John Paul II was a very ineffective and even weaker pope who allowed abuse upon abuse to be heaped upon The Bride of Christ.

Sorry... but this had to be said.

Hot Off The Presses Of The New York Times
Helmet tip to my pard'ner in crime, Former Altar Boy

A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has witnessed the whole scene, and addressing the biker, says
- "Sir, that was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life."
- "Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right."
- "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's papers will have this on the first page. What motorcycle do you ride?
- A Harley Davidson.

The journalist leaves. The following morning, the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads on the first page:

BIKER GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCHGotta be the NY Times.

More Military Torture Of The Innocent
Especially those horrid Marines!!

Right when the question of waterboarding again rears it's ugly head... this story breaks. If you thought the waterboarding of a whopping three terrorists was just too too much for your tender sensibilities, wait until you read what the crack team of investigative journalists at CNN (Caveman News Network) have uncovered!


US Military Tortures Hundreds Of Thousands

WASHINGTON, DC (Caveman News Network) At US Marine bases throughout the world, there has been an ongoing, but relatively unknown to the American people, systematic assembly line-style torture of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of American citizens. And this is nothing new. It's been going on for decades.

The physical and psychological torture begins with teen-agers. Boys, really. Many of whom have more peach fuzz than stubble on their faces. But it doesn't end there. It goes all the way to men in their forties.

A typical torture session begins with scores, sometimes hundreds, of Americans lined up against the wall of a building. The building in question is where the torture itself takes place. It may be a relatively new cinder block structure, or a post-WWII Quonset Hut, both sans windows. But what they all have in common is the sign above the doorway -- GAS CHAMBER.

The fear/apprehension of those ordered into line is almost as thick as the CS Gas that the so-called "instructors" are burning inside. In fact, the gas is so thick, it rivals the best pea soup fog that ever enveloped San Francisco. One can barely see from one side of the chamber to the other.

Almost as if the punchline to a sick joke, the soon-to-be-tortured are allowed to wear protective gas masks. But that won't last long. As soon as they are all ordered in... the doors slam shut behind them. Depending on the level of sadism in the "Chief Instructor", the torturees are ordered to remove their masks and either sing The Marines Hymn, do jumping jacks and push-ups, or simply scream out their name, rank and Social Security number. Or possibly all three. All the while, inhaling lungfuls of searing tear gas. Anyone who goes into a panic is immediately slammed against the wall and screamed at and belittled by one of the torturers, sorry... "Instructors".

Once all those inside have satisfied the diabolical lusts of the "Chief Instructor", the torturees are mercifully allowed to exit. Everyone has seeming bucketfuls of mucus pouring out of their nostrils. Everyone has their eyes swollen red as if they've been sandpapered. Some are vomiting.

And if they think this is over, they're wrong. At a minimum, they'll be doing this again in one year... and every year they're in the Marine Corps.What I just described was just one portion of Marine Corps NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) Qualifications. Every Marine goes through it. From Boot Camp/OCS, to Marines with more Hash Marks on their sleeves than you can count, everyone goes through the dreaded Gas Chamber every year at a minimum.

And I'm quite sure that the other Branches of the Armed Forces have similar training evolutions that are just as nasty and unpleasant. Just one example comes to mind -- Navy Damage Control excersizes. Thousands of gallons of water rushing into a water-tight, confined space. I'd be willing to bet that more than one sailor spazzed-out and honestly thought he was drowning. Torture?

So before you buy into this load of crap that waterboarding is torture, don't forget that there are plenty of things that our boys go through that could be qualified as "torture". Should I even bring up those nasty 20 mile speed marches I use to go on... complete with about 75 pounds of shit strapped to my body? How many of you have ever poured blood out of your boots? I have. Does that qualify as "torture"? Hardly. But we didn't bitch about it, we just did it because it made us hard. After all, you don't sharpen a bayonet with a feather.

And don't forget that Marines (and sailors, soldiers, airmen, and Coasties) who go through SERE School are also waterboarded. It's training... not torture.

There's an old saying in The Corps -- "you don't have to train to be miserable, but you do have to train to endure misery".

All The Depth Of A Kiddie Wading Pool
Another victim of Foot In Mouth Disease

As we all know, Michelle Obama has stated that “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...”.

And just to make things all the more interesting, her subsequent "explanation of what she really meant" is just as shallow and disgusting as her initial comment. Did anyone else notice that she never even had the class to apologize for how unbelievably crude and insulting her initial remark was?

And yes, yes... there is the expected and predictable litany of political/historical achievements that The United States has accomplished since Madame Obama reached chronological adulthood. Minor things like the tumbling of the Berlin Wall; the Liberation of Kuwait; firefighters rushing into the burning Twin Towers, her husband being elected to the United States Senate, etc, etc. Nahhh... nothing to be proud of there.

But how about some of the intangibles that come from her living in these here good ol' United States of America? Here's a rather short list that this (quite honestly) stupid woman should consider before she opens her yap --

1. That she lives in a country where she hasn't been dragged off in the dead of night and been shot through her head for implying that she "isn't proud of her nation". Good thing for MO that she doesn't live in North Korea or some such similar 3d World dung-heap of a nation.

2. That she lives in a country where her husband, daughters, mother, father, siblings, grandparents, and cousins, close friends, Third Grade teacher, dog, goldfish, haven't been dragged off in the dead of night and been shot through their heads because Michelle Obama implied that she "isn't proud of her nation". Ref #1 concerning MO residing in the PRK or similar nation.

3. Allow me to add that her daughters, sisters, female cousins, mother and grandmother weren't gang raped first.

4. That her daughters will reach adulthood, and not die of dysentery, bubonic plague, dyptheria, plain old starvation or hundreds of other maladies that plague most children on earth today. I guess MO hasn't really looked beyond the United States during her adulthood. She really should visit your average Latin American, African or Asian nation and see how most of the children of the world live.

5. In accordance with sharia law, her husband hasn't had his head crushed in via public stoning (or hung, or have his head carved off... whatever) for supposedly abandoning islam and embracing Christianity. I would imagine that MO is unfamiliar with how things are ran in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan when the Taliban ran things, and a host of other islamic vacation spots.

6. That she and her daughters haven't been tortured due to the head-of-the-household apostatizing from islam. See #5 concerning visiting islamic vacation spots.

7. That she has the unalienable right to publicly state really, really, really stupid things.

Yeah... Michelle Obama has absolutely no reason to be proud to be an American. What an unthinking, first class buffoon she is. And yes, I have the right to say that, too.

Gutless, Thy Name Is The California Catholic Conference
Or would "hypocrisy" work better?

WARNING!! Graphic descriptions in this posting. Use discretion.

Here's an interesting little article from The California Catholic Daily. I for one, find it somewhat amazing that they treat baby-butchers with kid gloves, but attack the death penalty with such vigor. And yes, as we all know, the DP in cases of extreme gravity and used rarely, is authorized by The Church.

But don't tell that to the California Catholic Conference. Here's some of the article;

You can’t call them “anti-life”
California bishops issue political action guide to pastors and parishes

Pastors and parishes may participate in some political action but may not use phrases such as “anti-life” to describe a candidate or a party, says a document released last month by the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops.

In its specific “Guidelines for Advocacy and Political Action,” the document says that “individual citizens are free to fully engage in partisan politics.” It advises that “religious leaders … should avoid taking positions on candidates or participating in political party matters even when acting in their individual capacity,” since they might find it “difficult to separate their personal activity from their public role as a Church leader.”

Lest they jeopardize their IRS tax exempt status, churches may not in any way “engage in partisan politics such as supporting or opposing individual political candidates for office,” says the document...

But no diocesan or parish “entity or organization may endorse, oppose or evaluate any political party or candidate for public office,” says the bishops’ document. Neither may they contribute in any way to candidates, campaigns, or political action committees. Examples of such prohibited activities, says the document, include “labeling a candidate or party as ‘pro-school aid’ or ‘anti-life,’” for “such a practice removes objectivity by not allowing readers to evaluate a candidate’s position themselves.”

The California Catholic Conference itself “reviews all of the statewide ballot initiatives and referenda,” and the bishops either together or individually choose “to support, oppose or take no position on each measure,” says the document. This being the case, it continues, "when neither the California Catholic Conference nor the (arch)diocese has taken a public position on a specific measure, a parish or Catholic organization should not do so without previous consultation with the bishop.” [Emphasis in original.]

Using church facilities for groups supporting or opposing legislation “should rarely be allowed,” says the document. And, “only with the specific permission of the diocesan bishop and the local pastor should Church facilities be used for signature gathering to place an initiative on the ballot.” [Emphasis in original.]From the CCC "Reverence For Life" page; (By the way, look how they tap dance around all the other "life issues".)

"Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing position against the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture."Wow... "cycle of violence"... "sense of vengeance". I wonder why they don't speak that strongly against those who hacksaw babies to death? Interesting.

But the indignation from the California Catholic Conference is reserved for those who dispense the JUST punishment on those who have had minor lapses in judgment... you know, like sexually torturing women to death by inserting hunting knives into their vaginas and gutting them like fish... or carving off their breasts. All the while, videotaping their acts so they could masturbate to them later.

More children die in one hour in any given abortuary than all of the executions that take place in the United States in an entire year. Methinks the CCC has their priorities just a liiiiiiitle off.

Random Thought On A Tuesday Morning...
Very random

Whenever I hear Protestants tell me that the Bible is all they need for salvation, does that mean that if they own the Physicians' Desk Reference, is that all they need to perform open heart surgery?

I saw some Peacenik bumper sticker the other day... "Arms Are For Hugging". They're also for choke holds.

Lastly, who really is Barack baby daddy?

'Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning.' -
Radio SitRep of Colonel David M. Shoup, USMC, Battle of Tarawa, 21 November 1943

Here's an interesting quote from William J. Stuntz, Harvard Law professor, in an article he wrote for The Weekly Standard;

Republicans may be slow to accept defeat, but Democrats seem to have trouble accepting victory. It is no longer possible to say with a straight face that the war in Iraq is as good as lost, or that the "surge" is a flop... Yet Obama and Clinton compete to see who condemned the war soonest and who can promise to withdraw American soldiers the fastest.

When did America become so full of gutless wimps? And while I'm at it, allow me to post what Father Gonzales has up over at Overheard in the Sacristy;

Can you guess who stated this?

In response to someone who begged XXXX to "go soft" on the Modernists, he retorted: "Kindness is for fools! They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses. But they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can! War is not made with charity, it is a struggle, a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible He would not have given an example in this too. See how He treated the Philistines; the sowers of error; the wolves in sheep's clothing; the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!"

Give up? It was one of my all time favs - Pope Saint Pius X. Sheesh, could you imagine him even trying to get into one of the many Lavender Mafia-controlled American Ovarianaries... oops, I mean Seminaries? Young Giuseppe Sarto wouldn't have lasted five minutes with an admissions board comprised of Father Limpwrist, Deacon Toohip, and Sister Mary Bulldyke.

Anyhow, in a world full of politicians and their "man hugs"... in a never ending cavalcade of politicians who scream of defeat even when we're winning... in a Church where many claim that actually standing up and confronting evil to it's face, that somehow qualifies as not being "very ecumenical" and doesn't fall into the soft and squishy gelatinous-theology of "What Would Jesus Do?", I for one would like to see men start acting like men again.

Oh... and I'm also sick of seeing men cry on camera. Damn it all, suck it up and be a man!

Don't Bite The Hand That Funds You
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

I'm not really digging for proof of what an absolute fraud and liar Barack Hussein Obama is... he just makes it so easy with his cheap, gold electro-plated pronouncements.

Example -- From the Omaha World-Herald;
"...when you have CEOs making in 10 minutes more than ordinary workers earn in an entire year, and CEOs getting all the tax breaks while workers struggle, something is wrong and we need to restore balance."Wow... that certainly does enflame one's passions against those nasty money grubbing CEO's, huh? And I won't mention that because of tax breaks, corporations actually have more money to hire even more workers... but like I said, I won't mention that.

Anyhow, I thought I'd post some info on what those nasty CEO's really do make, and what the celebrities who've endorsed BO make, as well.

Rex W Tillerson, CEO of (the uber-evil) Exxon/Mobile Corporation. He makes $13.1 million a year.

Oprah Winfrey made $260 million last year.

Nicholas D Chabraja, CEO of one of the major accomplices in the Military/Industrial Complex, General Dynamics, made $73.97 million in the past 5 years.

Robert De Niro, just for starring in Meet The Fockers; Analyze That; Meet The Parents; Analyze This; and Showtime, made $79 million. And those are only a few of the films he's made the past few years. Should I even bring up the $21 million he just paid for a swanky NY apartment?

Steven R Rogel, CEO of that tree killing, enviro-unfriendly corporation known as Weyerhaeuser, made $14.15 last year.

Halle Barry gets paid $14 million per film.

John V Faraci, CEO of yet another anti-green corporation, International Paper, made $4.71 million last year.

Scarlett Johansson made $5 million last year.

I found all this information in less than 30 minutes of surfing the web. Like I said before... Barack Obama's "facts" are so shallow, he doesn't even pass the Google Test.

I'd Like To Thank The City Council Of Berkeley And Ol' Satan Himself...
For proving that Catholicism and the Marine Corps are numero uno

That's right, I want to thank them.

First, to the City Council of Berkeley, for specifically going after the Marine Corps... and no one else.

You've shown to the world that it's the Marines who are the antithesis of your commie pinko weirdo homo mindset.

No offense to my brothers-in-arms in the others Services, but I take the Berkeley "insult" as a badge of honor.

Secondly, I'd like to thank Old Scratch himself for ensuring that if his followers really do want to insult God Almighty, that they should mock the Catholic Mass, steal Catholic Sacramentals and commit sacrilege to a validly Consecrated Host.

After all, who ever heard of a Protestant Song Book being desecrated at a Black Wednesday Night Church Service?

Meet The New Boss... Same As The Old Boss
Dear Pope Benedict, screw you. Love, Teddy Mac

WARNING!! Harsh language alert. If you are easily offen... aww hell, you know the drill.

Sing it, Brother Daltry. Damn right, we won't get fooled again. But it looks like Sweaty Teddy is trying his damndest to pull an end-run around authentic Catholic teaching... yet again. If you thought the Democrats were embroiled in one helluva case of "let's destroy ourselves", you haven't been following the antics of some of America's so-called Catholic leaders.

In the past, I've pointed out that whenever there is a difference in any given Biblical teaching, Catholicism always adheres to the more stringent, and Protestantism always adheres to what's easiest. Anyone else see the same parallel between (then) Cardinal Ratzinger and present day Martin Luther... I mean Cardinal Mac?

Here's the article from The California Catholic;
Beyond the right to life
Cardinal McCarrick addresses San Bernardino vicariate meeting on the duties of citizenship

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop-emeritus of Washington, D.C., addressed the annual meeting of the San Bernardino diocese’s six vicariates on Feb. 13. McCarrick, said an announcement on the San Bernardino diocesan web site, is “considered one of the Church's foremost experts on socio-political issues.” (If he's one of the "foremost experts", we're in deep shit.)

Though the diocese was hosting the event featuring McCarrick, the web site announcement was hesitant to say what the cardinal would address. “He is expected to speak about ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,’ a document released late last year by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops that details core Gospel values that Catholics should use in making personal, social or political choices,” said the announcement. “In an election year, Cardinal McCarrick is expected to offer unique insights on the relationship between Church teachings and high profile political issues of the day.” (I would imagine that the "unique insight" mentioned translates to the good Cardinal telling The Holy Father, the Magesterium, and 2,000 years of Catholicism that they collectivly can have sexual intercourse with themselves.)

According to a Feb. 14 Riverside Press Enterprise article covering the vicariate meeting, McCarrick told his audience that the bishops’ document does not tell Catholics how to vote but urges them to vote for the candidates who best support Church teaching. "The first and most essential right has to be the right to life," said the cardinal; still, "we are not a single-issue church. You start with the right to life. You have to. But you have to go beyond it. You cannot be authentically Catholic unless you go beyond it." (Did you catch that? "Beyond the right to life" So according to this direct spiritual descendant of Judas Iscariot, I can't be an authentic Catholic unless I look upon the innocent unborn as just another political issue. This guy is so patently full of bull shit.)

The Press Enterprise noted that McCarrick “was in the thick of political controversy in 2004 when he opposed proposals by several fellow bishops to deny communion to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry because of Kerry's support for legal abortion.” (That means he's "one of the Church's foremost experts on socio-political issues". The liberal news media is still pissing their pants with glee over McCarrick's open opposition to Rome. Saying he was in the thick of the controversy was putting it mildly. That's like saying that explosive diarrhea is in the thick of the soiled underwear controversy.)

McCarrick was the president of a task force that had been meeting in 2004 to offer recommendations on the question of denying communion to Catholic pro-abortion politicians, or even to Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians. It was McCarrick who consulted Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the matter, and Ratzinger replied with a memorandum. (Mac Daddy in charge of that task force, 'eh? Talk about the fox in charge of the hen house.)

The memorandum said pastors should meet with anyone guilty of formal cooperation in abortion or euthanasia (such as a Catholic politician “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”), “instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.” (Pretty blunt, fairly straightforward. Hell, even I can figure this one out. Howz about you?)

Ratzinger, citing a 2002 Vatican ruling on divorced and remarried Catholics, then said: “When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it’ [Emphasis added.] ... This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.” (I STILL understand this, only proving the statement from then Cdl Ratzinger isn't really all that hard to fathom.)

In a June 15, 2004 address to the U.S. bishops, Cardinal McCarrick seemed to soften Ratzinger’s words. Relaying Ratzinger’s communications (received, said McCarrick, both by memorandum and in telephone conversations), McCarrick said that Ratzinger “recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied.” [Emphasis added.] McCarrick added that “Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path.” [Double emphasis in original.] I hear Teddy Mac has penned a hymn specifically for Pope Benedict; in the Gregorian Chant style, let's all sing together!! --Hymmmn, hymmmmn, f**k himmmm

Selling The Sizzle, Not The Steak
And a fetid, putrid slab of meat, at that

I tell ya, fellow Bloglodytes... the more I read about this Barack Hussein Obama, the more amazed I am at the gullibility (read: stupidity) of the American people. I swear to ya, this guy is the Da Vinci Code of American politics. Simply put, much like that book of fairy tales by Dan Brown, Obama just doesn't pass the Google Test.

Here's a few examples;

1. First we have BO slamming NAFTA. According to the NY Times;
Mr. Obama opened his campaign for next week’s Wisconsin primary inside a General Motors plant in Janesville, one day after General Motors Corp. posted a $38 billion loss, the largest ever for a U.S. auto company. He criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed during the Clinton administration, and offered a series of plans to inject more jobs into the economy.And as reported by USA Today;

Obama criticizes Clinton on NAFTA, trade
MARION, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama sharply criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for her past support of NAFTA, saying the former first lady had changed her mind about the trade agreement only after becoming a presidential candidate. "I think it's important to note that Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for NAFTA for more than a decade," Sen. Obama said at a news conference where he accepted the endorsement of a regional chapter of the United Auto Workers.But then, as reported by MSNBC, he says that he wants to EXPAND NAFTA. (Scroll down to the 8th and 9th paragraph)

Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter’s protests to the contrary.

He also affirmed his support for free trade. “I am not going to say on a blanket basis that I’m going to vote against trade agreements,” Obama said. “We cannot draw a moat around the u.s. economy b/c china is still trading, India is still trading.”2. And then we have from Bloomberg.com, BO making statements such as;

"It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead," Obama said.But oddly enough, we have this tasty morsel from The National Ledger;
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.OK, seeing that the United States couldn't be generally tagged as an economic poverty stricken nation, I would guess that none of the $845,000,000,000 won't be spent in the good ol' US of A... right? Golly gee, I thought the priority for BO was to "start spending the money on putting America back together instead". Guess not.

3. Lastly, BO stated that he would vote to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it. From Fox News;
In a 2003 questionnaire for the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, Obama said he would vote to repeal the Patriot Act. In 2006 Obama voted for the re-drafted version of the Patriot Act that some critics contended made only minor changes to the original law.Everything to everyone.

BREAKING NEWS!! Catholic Archbishop Has Backbone...
Film at 11

I ran across this rather terse article just a few minutes ago. Take a gander, then read my open letter to the good Archbishop.

Archbishop questions Clinton rally at Catholic university
San Antonio, Feb. 14, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop José Gomez of San Antonio, Texas, has criticized the scheduling of a political rally for Senator Hillary Clinton at a local Catholic university.

The archbishop issued a public statement indicating that he was "neither advised nor consulted" before the Clinton rally was hosted by St. Mary's University on February 13. While emphasizing that he did not intend to instruct his people on how they should vote, Archbishop Gomez questioned the wisdom of holding a political event for Clinton or other candidates "who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

St. Mary's University responded to the criticism by saying that the school did not mean to imply an endorsement of Senator Clinton, and recognized that some political candidates take public stands that are not in accord with Catholic teaching.To wit, I respond with the following open letter to H.E. Abp Gomez;

You Excellency,
Two things I would like to say to you;

1. Congratulations for having the 'nads to point out the obvious to the baby-butchery enablers at St. Mary's University. I can only hope that in the not too distant future, you will issue something stronger than a few truthful words spoken to the local media.

2. As per your public statement, you were "neither advised nor consulted" by the powers-to-be at SMU prior to the arrival of the Wicked Witch of the North. And? Your Excellency... do you think they give a Tinker's Damn about your authority to re-emphasize and defend authentic Catholic teaching?

Archbishop Gomez, I'll break it down into caveman terms... the "Catholic" so-called leadership at SMU just told you to go screw yourself. Not many others will tell you that, but I will. Faithfully yours,
Vir Speluncae Catholicus
MSgt USMC (ret)