More Blowback from Development and Peace Supporters

The campaign to fight back against LifeSiteNews et al. and their of the Development and Peace scandal continues.

This article is from Radio Ville-Marie and documents the outrage of certain Quebec Catholics against the campaign by LifeSiteNews.

Note: they never name the other bloggers involved in this fight.

There are many things I find disgusting about this article.

But there's one emerging development that is becoming patently clear.

At least in the Quebec press, it's no longer only about left vs. right, orthodoxy vs. dissent but more and more about English vs. French.

The Catholic hierarchy MUST denounce this racist hypocrisy from these so-called progressives.

When you read the Quebec press about this, the journalists or commentators are quick to point out that these allegations come from English Canada.

I grew up in Quebec City as an Anglo and I know exactly what this means. Every Anglo would know what this means.

They are trying to discredit LifeSite's allegations by playing up how it comes from outside of Quebec. Because in Quebec, there is always an underlying sense that the English are out to get you.

In Quebec-- French: good. English: bad.

As long as this is the theme they play up, there is a sense that nobody has to really find out what is being said. Because French good, English bad. That's all that matters.

So then you get passages like this:

Mais les conclusions du rapport ont toujours été balayées du revers de la main par LifeSiteNews et d’autres blogues anglophones qui les estiment bâclées et fantoches. Du coup, ils ont poursuivi leurs « enquêtes internationales » sur l’organisme catholique principalement depuis leurs ordinateurs en Ontario.

The allegation made here is that D & P's detractors continue their "international investigation" mainly from their computers in Ontario.

"Ontario" was no accident.

They didn't have to mention Ontario. But they did.

French good, English bad.

The article quotes a letter that is being circulated among Development and Peace supporters:

« Ces groupes intégristes, dont LifeSiteNews au Canada, reviennent à la charge dans leur tentative de diviser l’Église en mettant en opposition certains évêques conservateurs qui les appuient et la Conférence épiscopale canadienne dans son entier qui, selon ces fanatiques, aurait abandonné la vraie foi et les enseignements du magistère ! », avance-t-elle dans l’un de ses paragraphes.

Translation: These fundamentalist groups, including LifesiteNews from Canada [as if it were relevant, or that nobody knew it was from there!] try to divide the Church, by opposing conservative bishops to the Canadian episcopal conference in its entirety, who, according to these fanatics, have abandoned the truth faith and the teachings of the Magisterium.

Notice: these English conservative bishops are opposed to the entire episcopal conference, a large number of whom are French Canadian or of French Canadian descent.

And the really ironic thing is how these dissenters are trying to use the authority of the bishops to quash this thing, when they themselves feel perfectly free to disobey the pope.

As they say in French: du n'importe quoi. They're just making it up as they go along.

But maybe it's good that the blowback begins. Bishops must begin to speak out. We will see who is truly pro-life and who isn't. The truth will out.

‘Sense of outrage’ over abortion should lead Canadians to March for Life: Bishops’ group

Sure there should be a sense of outrage.

I'd like to see it from the bishops for once!

And is issuing statements all COLF does?

Why do we have an organization like D & P that is supposed to fight poverty, but we don't have one that actively fights for fetal rights?

Shouldn't we have church-run CPC's, pro-life centres, etc etc?

Has no one ever thought of this?

Mind you, given the state of the episcopacy, perhaps it's just as well that it remain in lay hands.

Still, if we're going to have an organization fighting poverty, we should have an organization that is actively involved in fighting the pro-life cause on the ground, with concrete projects.

Pampers' commercial sends strong pro-life vibes

This sort of sums up the pro-life view about babies:

VIDEO: Kathy Shaidle on Ezra Levant

Fight Human Rights Commissions. It can't be said enough.



H/T: Stand Your Ground and Blazing Catfur.

About that Green Party candidate who was happy to be rid of his unborn child

He didn't do the Green Party any favours, says the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Facebook page:

Now what could possibly have been wrong with that statement? He was rid of his unborn child. Isn't that the purpose of abortion?

The abortion accomplished its goal and he just stated it plainly. What could be wrong with that?

Green Party Candidate on Abortion

Green Party candidate Roger Benham in Skeena-Bulkley Valley :

“I am sick to death about hearing murdering babies,” he said, saying that he got a woman pregnant when he was 25. “Thank God we decided to get rid of it.”

“Really, we do silly things when we’re young....and I’m sorry, but a lot of us men are bloody selfish when it comes to having sex,” he continued. “We think it’s nice enough to have a condom on and lo and behold...we get with a woman who looks like the back end of a bus.”

How come this is not controversial?

Throw contraception at it! (Not)

And all our problems will be solved!

Um no. From a study abstract:

Little is known about people's willingness to engage in sex without protection from unwanted pregnancy. This study surveyed 1,497 women and men at 75 clinics and physician offices across California after their reproductive health care visits in late 2007 and early 2008. When asked if they would have sex without contraception, 30% said definitively that yes, they would have unprotected sex, and 20% indicated they would "sometimes" or "maybe" engage in unprotected sex.

And if you think this is just a guy thing, or a teen thing, think again:

Age, gender, parity, and relationship status were not significant in multivariate models.

I find it amazing that people who say that people will want to have sex anyway, so just let them, don't understand this basic principle:

A considerable proportion of women and men may be willing to have unprotected sex, even with access to subsidized contraceptive services and even when recently counseled about birth control. The dominant behavioral models of contraceptive use need to acknowledge the widespread likelihood of occasional unprotected sex, even among people motivated to usually use contraceptives

Here's the truth folks:

People don't like using contraception.

It's a pain.

Besides the issue of effort and expense, contraception sends out a message of distrust, like:

I don't trust you're clean (in the case of condoms)

or

I don't trust that we're going to be around long enough to take care of kids

or

I don't trust in your (our?) ability to raise children (which undermine the masculine self-image).

Etc.

Contraception has a lot of negative implicit messages.

Which is among the reasons why people forego using it in spite of it being almost universally acknowledged to essential in preventing undesired pregnancy.

BUT in spite of all this, the researchers conclude:

Findings underscore the need to make contraceptive methods accessible, easy to use, and even pleasurable.

They're already accessible, but let's make them more accessible so that...what, they continue to ignore it?

And pleasurable? That's a bit of a joke.

The more pleasurable you make contraceptives, the more sex one will have, the more one increases the likelihood of contraceptive failure among the whole population-- among regular users and non.

And that will result in more abortions, on a collective scale.

Catholic Church in Brazil Condones Infanticide of Native Children by Their Parents

But what else is new, right?

I downloaded the free ebook. I couldn't finish it. It was bad for my blood pressure. It felt like the abortion debate all over again.

And the picture of the little baby being buried is so haunting. It reminds me of the pictures of women being buried to be stoned in Muslim countries.

But we wouldn't want to force these women to be mothers, right? [/sarcasm]

......

UPDATE:

SoCon or Bust draws my attention to the Development and Peace connection.

I thought there might be one.

The rot in the Church is deep

Says SoCon or Bust about the Development and Peace report scandal:

And let’s not forget the culpability of the Catholic Lapdog Press in this whole scandal. Shame on the Lapdog Press for drinking the D&P KoolAid and sharing it with their readers! Will they do the honourable thing and admit their errors? Or is it going to be more Dan Rather journalism? Will they FINALLY call out Development & Peace and take a harder line next time D&P tries to sell them their KoolAid? Salt and Light bears a particular responsibility in D&P’s propaganda because they welcomed Archbishop Weisgerber on the air and on their blog, without any sort of serious discernment about the incontrovertible facts that were already available to them at the time. We therefore call on the mainstream Catholic media to disseminate the news of this fraud just as broadly and vigorously as they disseminated the original whitewash report. This is the minimum requirement of justice and truth. The Catholic Register, Zenit, and Salt + Light are three organizations which need to come clean and report the truth.

Something tells me that they will dig up more tidbits to cover up the truth.

The best predictor of future results is past results.

Complaining of aggressive secularism is semi-useless

Who's to blame for the marginalization of Christians?

No doubt secularists have their part in this phenomenon.

But ultimately it's our own damned fault.

For a number of reasons.

We have not upheld our faith in the public square. We have not argued for objective truth, natural law, the reasonableness of faith and Christianity.

No, wouldn't want to upset our opponents, now, would we?

And ultimately, we have not gone out and made converts.

Let this be the lesson of the 20th and 21st centuries:

If we do not make converts, if we do not argue and persuade, through the mind and through the heart, we will lose ground.

We did not want to make converts in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

It's not even a question of you reap what you sow. If you don't reap, you don't sow.

We just assumed the ambient culture would transmit Christianity by itself.

We also assumed that mushy and/or post-modern Christianity was the key to attracting people to the Church.

How's that workin' for you, professional Catholics?

Fr. Raymond Gravel says if the Church does not adopt pro-homosexual values, that it will die.

Here's a prime example of someone who is so blinded by his ideology, he has completely failed to learn from history.

The Church has compromised, and compromised and compromised with the contemporary culture.

And the more we compromise, we the more we sink.

The best predictor of future results is past results.

I know people might think that the forays of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI represent a step back in the Church.

But the truth is, on the ground, a lot of what they say is routinely ignored.

It's liberal dissent as usual in the local churches.

And their compromises is what has led to the decline to the Church.

Reason 1: because it's intellectual and spiritual pap

And, maybe more importantly, Reason 2: because you can get it elsewhere.

If you do not need the Church to get secular values, why would you even go there?

Compromising with the world has done nothing for us.

So the obvious solution to it all is to stop compromising.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It's time for the Church to grow a spine and go back to the basics.

And not just the Gospel basics. The phrase "back to basics" can be misconstrued to mean teach  barebones Gospel as if to a bunch of second graders.

By "back to basics" I mean all those areas of knowledge that make up the intellectual edifice of the Catholic fath: not just Scripture, but Thomistic metaphysics, Church Fathers, apologetics, Papal encyclicals and the Catechism; all the things that every educated Catholic should be familiar with and accept. 

It's a tall order. Really, it takes a genuinely Catholic school to do this; this should be learned in the formative years, especially in the upper years of high school, when one is ready for the headier aspects of our faith.

Because once you lose the kids, it's tough to get them back.

And it's tough to make converts when you don't even teach your own youth.

Conservative Catholics have been saying this for years, and those who have implemented this have seen some success.

But no, no, the lib-left thinks it can just compromise just a little more, maybe the world will like us a little better, and people will come back.

It doesn't work that way people.

The world will always dislike us. It's our job to convince people to think our way. Because otherwise, we marginalize ourselves. We either convince, or we lose. There is no middle ground.

More Blowback from Development and Peace Supporters

It appears that the blowback campaign for Development and Peace is in full swing.

Did you notice how the evidence is never examined. It's just assumed that what LifeSiteNews said is untrue, or that promoting abortion isn't such a big.

The fact that LifeSiteNews and its supporters are intégristes, that is, people who follow the faith in its entirety, is perceived to be a strike against it.

Which shows you what kind of mentality we are dealing with.

This blogger quotes a letter from one organisation asking that the bishops of Canada defend Development and Peace.

But they never answer the charges.

They never defend what Fr. Arriaga or any other organization in their support for abortion.

They must know that, on some level, the promotion of abortion is indefensible.

So they have to smear LifeSiteNews and other similar-minded individuals with politically motivated labels instead of examining the evidence.

After all, what does it matter if LSN is "fundamentalist"? If what it says is true, then D & P does not have a leg to stand on.

I wish somebody would force these guys' hands and make them state their case: why should we fund groups that promote abortion? Is is that legal protection for the unborn is unimportant or immoral? Pick one.

In light of the revelation that D & P co-wrote the report that exonerated them, they no longer have that  to hide behind.

Will somebody in that organization have the guts to please state their real views about the legal rights of unborn children? Have the courage of your convictions. Truth matters.

VIDEO: The Deadly Path of Contraception

This simple video explains why contraception does not lead to fewer abortions:

VIDEO: Attacks On Sarah Palin's "Retarded" Son!!

The Canadian Bishops Have Misled The Faithful and Slandered LSN

Do you suppose the retractions are forthcoming?

Somehow I doubt it.

Archbishop Currie acknowledged that LifeSiteNews’ investigation may well have been more accurate than that of his delegation. “With LifeSite, perhaps they would dig a lot deeper ... and make connections which perhaps we didn’t make because we don’t have that kind of access or time.”

What a lame excuse.

If you conduct an investigation, you do everything you need to get to the truth and you take the time you need to do it.

LSN is not a multi-million dollar organisation. The Canadian Catholic Church is. We're supposed to believe that it was just impossible for Catholic bishops to get the money and the time to discover the truth about where the faithful's money is going (but possible for LSN to do so)? They have millions of dollars to pay out to sex abuse victims, but not thousands of dollars to figure out what their own organisation is doing?

Really, what should have happened is that an outside investigator/auditor should have conducted this investigation.

But I get the feeling that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and the bishops did not want to "waste" a lot of time on this, and they just wanted the cover they needed to blow of LifesiteNews and the pro-life movement.

Now the story is all over Canada (and especially Quebec) that LSN is making unfounded attacks against D &  P, when in fact, they are founded. But the bishops are not going to go out of their way to make amends for this farce of a report.

This scandal is not going away because the evidence is just plain to the naked eye. When you have dozens upon dozens of allegations of funding groups that promote abortion, you'd think they would make a more determined effort to find out the truth.

But the actions of the bishops suggest that they just do not care. They may give lip service to the idea of the right to life,  but when it comes to concrete action to stop abortion and promote the right to life, the social justice ideology trumps all other considerations. The proof is in the pudding. They don't want to look at the evidence because they don't take the pro-life movement all that seriously because they don't take pro-life philosophy all that seriously.

How many bishops show up for the March for Life in Ottawa or local Marches for Life? There's your answer. How many show up for LifeChain? How many make a concerted effort to educate the faithful about life issues?

There's your answer.

How to cast a protest vote this federal election

The advanced polls open tomorrow for the election.

I thought I would issue this public service announcement on how to cast a protest vote, for those who might not want to vote for any of the candidates.

The reason this is necessary is that there is some controversy as to whether it is legal to mark a ballot in any other way.

If you do not like any of the candidates on the ballot, what you must do, then, is hand in a blank ballot.

I suggest that you take the ballot from the Deputy Returning Officer and that you go behind the screen even if you intend not to mark your ballot. in order to preserve the secrecy of your vote.

You do not have to go behind the screen: You can take the ballot and then hand it back to the DRO right away, but then the DRO knows that you handed in a blank ballot, and this way your vote selection is public knowledge.

I also think that it might be worth a shot to go in back of the screen and read the list of candidates on the ballot in case there is a fringe candidate you had not heard of.

Note: Elections Canada does not "decline" votes as in Ontario elections.

Handing in a blank ballot is the only way to participate in the vote without selecting any of the candidates.

Once you have handed in your ballot, you will be counted as "having vote". Your vote will contribute to the participation rate. However, your blank ballot will be counted as "rejected".

I quickly scanned the number of rejected votes in each riding in Canada. Usually the number amounts to less than one per cent, although in some ridings they number more than 1 per cent.

Please be aware than when you vote you will need to bring two pieces of identification: one with just your name, and one with your address. Your Voter notification card does not count as ID. You do not need photo ID.

If you need a list of candidates in your riding,you can go here. Do a search. Once you electoral district is identified, go to the menu at the top of the screen and press on "candidates". It will bring you to the page with the list of candidates in your riding.

As always, please remember to vote according to pro-life values.

Candidate evaluations are available here.

More Constructive Criticism for Sun News Network

From Rightchik:

But how about a news update every half hour? Better news crawlers would be appreciated too. What about a news hour at dinner and again around 10 pm? Seriously, if Sun News does this I might never switch the channel. Really. Because I like to know what is going on I switch it to CTV at the top and bottom of every hour to find out what is happening across the country and around the world.

The evening shows spend too much time looping. I don't like that. At all.

I know, I know, 20 million for a budget isn't much of a budget but surely there must be some Television Broadcasting new graduate who would be delighted for a shot at reading news and doing graveyard hours talk shows for cheap. Please note that I didn't say journalism grad - I don't think very much of our university journalism faculties. But that is beside the point. More meat, less filler please.

Ditto!

I hope they're reading the blogs.

I don't want the Sunshine Girl Channel

Tasha Kheiriddin nails it:

So why won’t I be watching? Because despite its virtues, Sun TV really isn’t about Hard News and Straight Talk. It’s about Hot Chicks and Sexy Outfits. And oh yes, after 5 pm, ladies, for the most part, you are dismissed.

For its women presenters, there seems to be a ban on sleeves. Not a jacket in sight. Only cocktail dresses, as clingy and low-cut as possible.

...

After 5 pm, the women go home, and the men come out. All wearing suits, needless to say. And interviewing overwhelmingly…. other men in suits. The first night, in three hours of television, I counted all of three women guests, one of whom was Samantha Ardente, the school-secretary-turned-porn-star from Quebec. The second night did feature a female Sun correspondent with covered arms – sporting a very tight sweater. Hmm.

It’s clear who the target audience is for Sun TV, and it actually isn’t small-c conservatives: it’s men who like their news with a side of T and A and bluster. Perhaps this represents the brave new frontier of television. Perhaps not. The market will decide, as it should, whether Sun TV lives or dies. But if this is the tone they want to strike, I won’t be watching. Call me crazy, but I prefer my anchors with sleeves.

I find the Sunshine girls visually boring.

It's about zero degrees outside, and they're in sun dresses. What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with the way CBC and CTV news anchors look? Suhana Meharchand, Heather Hiscox, Sandie Rinaldo-- they may not be Sunshine Girl material, but they look good to me, and they look professional and not like they're trying to appeal to baser instincts.

I like watching good-looking women. But when just about every single woman on that station is a potential sunshine girl, I feel like Sun News doesn't think much of women like me: fat and dumpy and pushing 40.

And no, I don't want beefcake anchors either. I just don't want to feel like the news station picked the female anchors for their curves, not their brains and ability.

Indiana couple with 3 children welcome quintuplets

Just a feel good story. In spite of all the problems, in the end, they will be happy to all have each other.

How Russia Became Atheist

Mystagogy reproduces a talk given by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev on how atheism came to dominate Russia, in spite of its profound Christian roots.

As you might expect, the decline began in pre-revolutionary Russia. The parallels between that situation, and that of Canada (especially Quebec) are quite interesting.

This makes me think of (the spirit of) Vatican II:

I remember reading a book by Father Georgy Shavelsky, the Protopresbyter of the Russian Army and Navy under Nicholas II. Himself one of the senior members of the Holy Synod, he testified that the Synod was in fact very far from the life of people, that it did very little (if anything) to prevent atheist propaganda from spreading among ordinary people. To show how little remained of the people's traditional devotion to God, Shavelsky cites the following example: when attendance at the Liturgy became, by a special imperial decree, no longer obligatory for Russian soldiers, only ten percent of them continued to go to church.

Another testimony of the same kind is that of Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), who became the Bishop of the White Army after the revolution. He writes that none of the students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, where he had studied, ever went to see Father John of Kronstadt, and that some of the students were atheists. He describes the atmosphere of spiritual coolness inside the Orthodox Church, the lack of prophetic spirit. He claims that it was not by mere chance that there arose people like Rasputin: against the common background of indifference towards religion he appeared as a charismatic figure and was at first accepted as such by the ecclesiastical authorities, who then directed his steps to the imperial palace.

(...)

The picture which one gains when reading the memoirs of those living during the pre-revolutionary period is that of a deep decline in religious belief. Though Orthodox Christianity was still maintained as the official religion of the Russian monarchy, both society and the Church were fatally contaminated by unbelief, nihilism and atheism. Even the seminarists, future priests, balanced on the edge between religion and atheism. Many ordinary Christians, if not the majority, had no faith at all, and it was they who turned against the Church as soon as membership in it stopped being encouraged. The Church at once lost the great majority of its members and remained a small flock of those prepared to die for Christ.

H/T: Walk with Men

Why do people let their kids shriek, run around and generally misbehave?

ABC News posted this editorial:

Would You Pay to NOT Sit Near Screaming Kids on Planes?


I'm fine with an adults-only section.

Here's my question:

Why do people let their kids shriek, run around and generally wreak havoc?

What makes people feel entitled to expect other adults to put up with their kids' bad behaviour?

I know that not all crying is the result of bratty behaviour. An infant doesn't mean to develop colic on a 9 hour flight.

But don't adults foresee these things?

If you know your kid is a crier, aren't you going to plan for that possibility?

But the problem as I see it is that parents don't develop a pattern of expecting good behaviour from their kids and enforcing it.

Here's a good rule to follow for would-be parents:

Make everything dependent on your children's good behaviour.

If they behave, they get stuff.

If they don't behave, they don't get stuff. They don't go anywhere. If you can't behave at the mall, you don't go to the mall. If you can't behave at the park, you don't go to the park.

And if they have a tantrum in public that lasts more than 30 seconds (less if they're older), you're gone.It's time to go back to the car until they smarten up (of if they won't go home). If that means leaving a full cart of groceries at the store, so be it.

It can be extremely inconvenient. I remember one time one of my kids had a tantrum in the toy section at Zeller's. I told her to stop crying or we're out of here. She wouldn't cooperate. So I and my husband had to drag her through the aisles, while she was kicking and screaming. I remember she even knocked down some items on the shelves on the way.

I actually got a lot of appreciative looks for doing that because the truth is, people in general cannot stand bratty behaviour.

It does take some effort. But here's the thing to remember: parenting is your number one job.

It's more important than the Christmas shopping, or going to the dentist, or going to the park or whatever it is you have to do.

The thing is, if you operate on the principle every day of your parenting life, your kids will get it. They will understand that they can't pull stupid crap on you, or else bad stuff will happen to them.

The flipside of this, though, is that when your kids behave well, reward them. Reward them with praise. Reward them with little treats. Reward them with junk from the dollar store.

If they know that good behaviour is worth their while, they will behave well.

Besides, with experience, they will come to understand that good behaviour is better than bad behaviour. Good behaviour is more efficient; it creates more peace and fun; it just lightens the atmosphere.

To me, this is all very elementary. With all the parenting advice out there: Dr. Phil, Supernanny and Dr. Laura-- among others that I recommend- it should be common knowledge. But people don't put this into practice.

Why, why why?

And I'll tell you, my big pet peeve is parents of autistic kids who think that because their kids are autistic, they are entitled to other people putting up with their kids' tantrum just because they're special.

Autistic kids may have more meltdowns, and their behaviour is sometimes hard to control.

It's still a meltdown to the people around them, and they still have to put up with it. It's still annoying.

Besides, autistic kids can get it, and you can foresee whether there is potential for meltdown or not. If you can't prevent your kid's meltdowns in public (and here's the really controversial opinion) don't bring them there.

This is a very controversial opinion among people with autistic children.

I don't think it's controversial. And actually, when you require children to not have meltdowns, and you try to prevent them ahead of time, they are far less likely to happen.

Now if this is true of autistic kids, it's just as true of kids who don't have developmental issues.

This is should be conventional wisdom, in my opinion, but we're so afraid of requiring good behaviour because we don't want to seem mean.

But what's mean is expecting others to put up with your kids' screaming. It's not being intolerant of kids. It's being intolerant of bad behaviour.

VIDEO: Cohabitator's Vows

Rise in abortions among mothers denied morning sickness drugs

This is an outrage.

Women getting abortions because they can't get the right drugs?

WTH.

I'm very sympathetic to women who have bad nausea and I can see how it can drive certain women over the edge and choose abortion.

If you have a money problem, you can find more money; if you have a relationship problem, you can get out of the relationship.

But when you have a problem with your body, you can't get out of your body. If there's no medicine for you, it's quite hellish.

Diclectin really helps. I've used it. But I don't think it should be seen as some kind of wonder drug. It makes me really tired. I would only use it if I knew I could sleep in. It's better than barfing your brains out, that's for sure.

I think this whole drug-free thing is taken a little far. Of course it's better to be safe than sorry, but thousands of women take Diclectin. If there was a problem, we'd know about it by now.

Abortion Racism in Canada

From Gay Caswell's blog:

About three weeks ago we were informed that a mailout called “ It’s a Person”was being sent to targetted communities in the North, one of which was Brabant Lake. The purpose was to educate and to raise the prolife issue in the North at election time. No such pamphlet has arrived. We do not know why it hasn’t reached the northern communities or exactly who is responsible. We are all too familiar with the general situation. There are those who think that prolife may be all well and good for communities south of Prince Albert but natives and northerners NEED abortion. If natives don’t have abortion they’ll have too many children, such as any. Hence, prolife material must be kept out of the North.

People with this mindset know that most northerners do not want abortion and they will willingly have a baby despite less than a perfect situation. Has there any baby that was born in a perfect situation? Certainly not the one born on December 25, 2010 years ago.

They do not want northerners to know that there are people who believe that they have a right and duty to allow a child once conceived to be born. They do not want northerners to know that they have a right to say NO to being coerced into abortion.

Go read the whole thing. Read the stories about co-erced abortion. But hey, they don't need no stinkin' coerced abortion law or anything.

If you're being pushed into an abortion, it's for your own good!

Fr. Raymond Gravel...on the ropes?

John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust mentioned an article in Le Devoir regarding Fr. Raymond Gravel travelling to Rome to make his case about LifeSiteNews.

The article is hidden behind a subscription firewall. But it was posted on the nationalist website Vigile.net.

John speculated that Fr. Gravel seems to have been summoned to Rome.

As the article mentions that Fr. Gravel will meet with Cardinal Levada at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this appears to support the thesis.

In summary, the article says:

Rome has written at least one letter to the Bishop of Joliet expressing a "wish" that Fr. Raymond Gravel be suspended from the priesthood. Which, of course, Bishop Lussier has not granted.

Fr. Gravel says that because of LifeSiteNews, he always feels like he is on the verge of being kicked out (i.e. kicked out of the priesthood). He complains that priests are "like numbers" to the Vaticans, and he fears that it will not take into account all the good he's done in the last 25 years.

He will meet with Cardinal Levada on Thursday and make his case about LifeSiteNews. (And, I suspect, how he's not contradicting Church teaching. Supposedly).

Fr. Gravel complains that Cardinal Ouellet should have told the truth at the Vatican about what was said about him on LifeSiteNews.

He also says that it's in the Church's best interest to accept his stance on abortion and homosexuality, because they represent "Quebec values". He says if it doesn't the Church will die.

He thinks he still has a place in the Catholic Church, and that the Church has a message of hope that, at the time, is not very well conveyed.

.......

I just would like for you to keep in mind that the MSM often screws up on Catholic stories.

But Fr. Gravel probably has people at Le Devoir who are sympathetic to him.

I think that this is looking really bad for him.

If he is going to Rome to talk to Cardinal Levada and LifeSitenews, it can't be good.

Cardinal Levada is probably going to take out a file of all the negative reports on LSN, and then ask Fr. Gravel to respond to the issues.

I predict that, in his mind, he's going to think himself completely innocent, so he will answer in the most naive way possible, and eventually incriminate himself without the faintest suspicion that he is saying anything "wrong". He has a pattern of doing this. His dissent from Church teaching is very naive. There's no subterfuge in him (must give the man credit). He honestly believes that what he is doing is perfectly kosher, so there is no need to couch his speech and thinking in politically and theologically expedient language.

I fear getting my hopes up, because the official Church has let me down before.

But this might just be the end of the line for Fr. Gravel. He's going to bow to the Magisterium, or he's going to be disciplined.

I hope there's a reporter on this story on Thursday. I just find it interesting that this meeting is being held on Holy Thursday. Is there an attempt to bury this story? Hmmm...

Opus Dei Hysteria

Steven Greydanus:

For your shock and amusement, here’s the full exchange as Joffé related it. The discussion begins with Joffé mentioning that he’s making a film about Opus Dei.

Friend: Oh my God, that’s a Fascist organization! I mean, they slaughtered hundreds of people!

Joffé: They have? Really? How do you know that?

F: Well, even if they haven’t, they’re extremely influential in the Church. I mean, they basically control the Church.

J: How would they control the Church?

F: They control the cardinals and the pope.

J: They hypnotize them? How do they do it?

F: They do it through the cardinals.

J: How many cardinals are in Opus Dei?

F: Hundreds.

J: Well, how many cardinals are there [in the world]?

F: I don’t know, but lots and lots of them are definitely in Opus Dei.

J: Well, I think there may be one or two, or maybe in three.

F: Well, that’s what I’m saying—that’s the way it works. It’s all kept secret.

J: Well, okay. Anything else?

F: Bishops. Lots and lots of bishops. How do you account for all these bishops in Opus Dei?

J: How many bishops are in Opus Dei?

F: Well, I don’t know—thousands of bishops …

Apparently it went downhill from there.

The Temporizing Priest

Edward Feser describes the temporizing priest: the priest who is not necessarily unorthodox, but who dilutes Catholic teaching in his speech:

Here’s how the temporizing approach works. Where the liberal or secularist finds Catholic teaching hopelessly “reactionary,” the temporizing churchman will either keep silent about it or qualify it to the point of blunting or even neutralizing its force. Hence he will, for example, say nothing at all about contraception. Homosexuality and abortion he cannot keep silent about, because they are matters of current political controversy. Regarding homosexuality, then, he will issue a vague statement to the effect that the Church believes that we are all called to honor the Creator’s plan for sex and marriage. If he can’t avoid doing so, he will acknowledge that this entails that homosexual activity is immoral; but he will also, and almost before he has finished uttering it, proceed to bury this acknowledgment under a mountain of verbiage about the respect, sensitivity, compassion, and understanding owed homosexual persons, about the evils of discrimination, etc. Regarding abortion, the temporizing bishop will speak vaguely of “promoting a culture of life” and emphasize the compassion owed women who find themselves “in difficult circumstances” – rather than, say, calling attention to the unique depravity of willfully murdering your own flesh and blood for the sake of a hassle-free orgasm. No matter how wicked the practice or policy and no matter how shrill and dishonest the propaganda of its defenders, the temporizing bishop will respond in the mildest fashion and will attribute only the best motives to the other side. As George Carlin might have put it, whereas the great churchmen of the past were football players, the modern, temporizing bishop prefers baseball. Or to switch metaphors, he brings a bean bag to a gunfight.


Or at least he does so where, again, the Church’s teaching seems “reactionary.” Where it seems (or can be made to seem) “progressive,” the temporizing churchman suddenly turns into Knute Rockne, or Gary Cooper in High Noon. He will issue bold statements on immigration, health care, or capital punishment, and will emphasize these purportedly “liberal friendly” issues to the point of exaggerating their significance relative to the Church’s more “reactionary” teachings. And he will see common ground between Catholicism and liberalism where in fact there is no common ground – sometimes in a manner that seriously distorts what the Church actually teaches. Again, last year’s health care debate provides an illustration: The statements made at the time by the USCCB gave the false impression that, apart from federal funding of abortion, Catholic teaching would favor the passage of President’s health care bill, or something like it. But as I noted at the time, the fact is that while Catholic social teaching unambiguously rejects the dogmatic laissez-faire position of extreme libertarianism, it is at the level of general principle nevertheless much closer to the “conservative” end of the political spectrum than to the “liberal” end – insisting, on grounds of justice, on decentralized and private solutions wherever possible, and leaving matters of concrete policy for competent laymen to decide rather than imposing any particular program.

With exceptions, this describes Catholic clergy as a whole in this day and age.

It's not working. It's time to tell it like it is.

Study tells so-cons what they already know

Waiting for marriage to have sex leads to better outcomes.

(Well duh!)

Yes, some Catholic bloggers you know made it to the Blogger Meetup

The list is here (scroll down quite a bit).

Katrina Ebersole The Crescat is in.

Hilary White is in.

Joan Lewis from EWTN.

Lisa Hendey from Catholicmom.com

Rocco Palmo from Whispers in the Loggia

Thomas Peters of American Papist

Anna Arco from the UK's The Catholic Herald

Tim Kelleher from First Things

I also recognized a few French names.

If I didn't mention you, no offense-- there are a lot of names I don't recognize.

Except for Hilary White, I did not recognize any Canadian names, not even from Quebec. And she lives in Europe.

It looks like there are a lot of good new Catholic blogs to discover.

When headlines lie

The headline reads:

Most Catholics use birth control: study

The article from Reuters reads:

Some 98% of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

...

“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones.

Note the bait-and-switch in verb tenses.

98% of Catholics HAVE used "birth control" (i.e. contraception).

But if you read Guttmacher's blurb on their web site it says:

Some 68% of Catholic women use a highly effective method,

So that leaves 32 per cent who don't. Which is not to say they are not contracepting, but...

And note, this is NOT 68% of MARRIED and Church-going women. This is 68% of ALL Catholic women, regardless of their church attendance or marital status.

And then you read the charts:

Two per cent are using NFP but 11% are using nothing-- which is perfectly acceptable. So that's 13 per cent of Catholics who are not contracepting. That's 1 in 8 (or so). A much greater per centage than the 1 in 50 implied in the headlines.

And note again-- this is among ALL Catholic women.

What I notice is that they didn't show results for married Catholic who attend Church once a week.

Of course if you're not married and having sex, you're probably not relying on NFP... So the actual numbers of married Catholic women using NFP is greater than 2 per cent. And it's probably higher among women who are married and attend Church weekly. So the actual number of married women who attend Church weekly who do not contracept is greater than 1 in 8.

Which corresponds more to my personal experience, than the 1 in 50 implied in the headlines.

I think Guttmacher's use of church attendance as a measure of personal faith is tone deaf as regards "strong religious conviction". Church attendance is only one factor among many.

What they should have done is asked more probing questions about the women's personal faith, such as:

Do you believe Jesus is divine?

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

Do you believe that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals?

Do you believe that contraception is a sin?

I strongly doubt Guttmacher would ever ask that, as I am certain that their stats on the number of Catholic women who contracept would disprove their propaganda that many people with a strong personal religious faith use contraception.

See, the leftist idea of a strong personal faith is different from an orthodox one. For the leftist, any personal conviction rooted in God is a "strong personal faith" whether it's actually based on divine revelation or not.

In the Catholic sense, a strong personal faith is based on a belief in divine revelation and the relevance of the supernatural in one's lives.

To be sure, there are lots of Catholics who contracept, even those who believe contraception is a sin.

But it's not 98% of them. It may not even be half of them.

But those stats would be very inconvenient for Guttmacher.

What this also discloses, unfortunately, is that the bishops and priests have not been doing a very good job about preaching about the sin of contraception. I suspect most of them don't even believe it themselves.

Oh the irony

SNAP Psychiatrist Sent to Prison


It takes one to know one?

VIDEO: Margaret Sanger on the greatest sin

It's interesting how leftists often condemn the Church for things that were done hundreds of years ago.

But when their own heroes promoted unprogressive ideas within their lifetime (or close), they get a pass.

Cardinal Pell for Pope!

In the April 2011 edition of Swag, the magazine for Australia's National Council of Priests, Cardinal Pell takes down Fr. Eric Hodgens, a dissident priest who had written an earlier article concerning the priests of the Gaudium and Spes generation.

I don't have the original article, but that's not important.

What I want to highlight is how forthright and how orthodox Cardinal is in his rebuke of Fr. Hodgens' article.

I've never seen this. Ever. A bishop (and a cardinal no less) just taking down a dissident in plain language.

There's too much to quote. So I'll just quote these parts:

The now aged liberal wing of the Church, which dominated discussion after the Council and often the bishops and the emerging Church bureaucracies, has no following among young practising Catholics, priests or religious. This is not only true in Australia, but everywhere in the Western world. In these different countries dominated by a secular media and intelligentsia, liberalism has no young Catholic progeny.

...

Eric is a bit too generous to his generation, to which I belong. Many were formidable, but we coincided with a period of decline probably unparalleled since the Reformation.

Finally, finally, finally, a bishop who cuts the bull. And not only does he cut the bull with a general audience, but he tells it like it is to the priests.

H/T Australia Incognita

Update on the Vatican Blogmeet

The nominations for bloggers ends today, reports Anna Arco.

The names of those chosen will be revealed Saturday at http://www.pccs.va/

My fear is precisely that big names like Anna Arco would get chosen and smaller fry would get passed over.

C.S. Lewis on the evil of masturbation

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.

-C.S. Lewis

The same could be applied to pornography as they go together.

I do get a lot of people who look up this blog with x-rated search terms. I hope they land on this page!

H/T: Maria Stops Abortion

Attention Development and Peace Members and Supporters

Today's quote of the day from Archbishop Chaput:

“We can’t simultaneously serve the poor and accept the legal killing of unborn children. We can’t build a just society, and at the same time, legally sanctify the destruction of generations of unborn human life. The rights of the poor and the rights of the unborn child flow from exactly the same human dignity guaranteed by the God who created us.”

Got it? If you claim to serve the poor, you cannot accept the legalized killing of unborn children. They are BOTH social justic issues.

VIDEO: Real Catholic TV Responds to Being Banned in Scranton

The Theology of Dad on the Development and Peace Scandal

Colin Kerr:

Of D & P, what more can be said? Here you have a situation where the two most powerful bishops in the country, Their Graces, Collins and Prendergast, have stated publicly that the fruit of the tree is rotten. These bishops have offices in same buildings as these D & P people, and they run into them all the time, I am sure. Can you say, awkward? And yet, who has heard anything about heads that have rolled at D &  P / CCCB as a consequence of the ongoing expose? But no serious Catholic whose memory extends back more than ten years expects that this will occur. Crazy things have been happening with the CCCB and every diocese in this country for as long as I have been Catholic, and usually nothing happens as a consequence. Now, I know things are slowly beginning to change. Hence, Collins and Prendergast. In the context of the last 40 years they constitute serious episcopal anomalies.

Look, it's not mystery folks.

The head office of Development and Peace is in Montreal.

A diocese headed by a Cardinal-- Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte-- who stated publicly on French television-- RDI to be precise-- that he is opposed to abortion being re-criminalized.

If the head of the Church in Montreal doesn't think unborn human beings are entitled to the right to life, why should the rest of the faithful?

Really, what we need are a bunch of clergy-- especially bishops-- who tell bishops opposed to fetal rights exactly where they get off.

Until the Church is one on fetal rights, and it's treated as a serious human rights issue, this is going to continue.

And the big problem of the Church in Canada is Quebec.

I realize that opposition to fetal rights and apathy about it is widespread in this country, but it's endemic in Quebec, the most Catholic province (by numbers) in the country.

We will never have fetal rights legislation, or a Church united in support of fetal rights, until we get serious about making progress in Quebec.

Moderation decision

I've decided I've had enough.

From now on, Janus' constant need to make every thread about herself is verboten.

Any comment that turns a thread about herself when it does not concern her will not be published.

The thread hijacking will stop.

Comments are turned off.

Spirit and Truth wants to know who your pro-life Hero of Hope is

Take the survey.

Blogger meet up being organized at the Vatican

Details at Whispers in the Loggia.

At first, I thought it would be exciting but then I said to myself...

Let's be serious. Do you think that really blunt Catholic bloggers would be invited at this sort of thing?

The aim of the meeting, which is being organised by the Pontifical Councils for Culture and Social Communications, is to allow for a dialogue between bloggers and Church representatives, to listen to the experiences of those who are actively involved in this arena, and to achieve a greater understanding of the needs of that community.

Needs of that community?

How about ORTHODOXY!!!!

I don't really "need" anything except for the bishops to pay attention to the Catechism and Canon Law.

But these official gatherings in institutional settings tend to be so sedate and polite, that nothing will ever get across.

The institutional framework and mentality of professional Catholics is such that they just do not want to hear what orthodox faithful Catholics have to say.

I mean I want to go there and tell everyone please cut the bull****!

Look at the Development and Peace scandal. How did the bishops react when they got the news? They dumped all over LifeSiteNews and indirectly on SoCon or Bust (the head guy on this scandal) and maybe a little on me and other faithful Catholic bloggers for wanting a Church that's more orthodox...that's more faithful to the Word and Will of God.

If that's the reaction of the locals, how do you supposed entrenched professional Catholics at the Vatican will react to us?

In Europe, there's still a strong monarchical/classist mentality, where the aristocrats know better than you. The Vatican, is a kind of aristocracy. And when you're around aristocracy, protocol is to be ultra polite and not say things the way they are.

That's the complete opposite of blogging. Okay, maybe some Catholics are still very polite. But there comes a point when, in order to get your idea across, you just state things as plainly as possible.

This is not how the Vatican operates at all.

The first panel will involve 5 bloggers – they will be chosen to represent different language groups and each will address a specific theme of general relevance. The second panel will draw on people involved in the Church’s communications outreach – they will speak of their experiences in working with new media and initiatives aimed at ensuring an effective engagement by the Church with bloggers.

The Vatican will select the bloggers. Oy.

Who do you suppose they will pick? I suspect it's not the blunt, small-time grassroots lay bloggers.

The invitation is open to all, but bloggers who wish to attend need to apply by emailing blogmeet@pccs.it and sending a link to their blog. As space is limited to 150 seats and there is a desire to have a representation of the entire blogosphere, entrance passes and further details will be distributed with a view to the diversity of language and geography, typology of blogs (institutional or private, multivoice or personal), subjects of blogs, and timeliness of request.

More blogger selection. Ugh. Do you suspect Fr. Rosica might have something to say about who represents Canada?

But you know, this might be something to pursue in Canada...a blogger meet up for Catholic bloggers. It would have to be on a regional/provincial basis.

Imagine a conference/get-together where we all air our grievances about the institutional, etc. That would make news.

I'm not waiting for the Canadian Bishops to try it. We all know who wouldn't be invited...

Donald Trump talks about his conversion to the pro-life cause

Okay, I'm a skeptic.

Being a Canadian so-con who has been screwed over by Conservatives in the past, it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

I'll believe it when I see the Donald put his money where his mouth is.

By the way, Mr. Trump, if you're reading this and looking for pro-life causes to support, I'd like to suggest
looking into supporting my fellow pro-lifers at LifeSiteNews.com. They are being sued by a renegade Catholic priest for $500 000 in a politically motivated lawsuit. They could use your spare change. :)

Michael Voris: Banned in Scranton

It's late and I should be in bed. Details at The Eponymous Flower.

I note that his "errors" are not actually listed.

Santa Fe archbishop: No Communion for cohabitating couples

This is the correct pastoral response.

Question: Does Archbishop Michael Sheehan deny communion to public figures who vote for abortion?

Because if you're going to deny Communion to one, but not the other, that smells of being a "respecter of persons".

Fr. Raymond de Souza: D & P does not get it

So Development and Peace...when are you going to prove you get it?

Catholic Bishops, when are you going to require that they do get it?

Fr. Raymond de Souza:

Its vision and mission statements say nothing about God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel, Christianity, evangelization, salvation or the proclamation of the kingdom. In its own self-presentation it is indistinguishable from a secular humanitarian organization, save for its official fundraising activities in Catholic dioceses.

...

If D & P was deeply convinced that abortion is an “abominable crime,” to use the words of Vatican II, it would not consider pro-abortion agencies to be partners in the struggle for justice, which always begins with the right to life. One could ask D & P whether it would consider a bottled water company a suitable partner? Perhaps that would be beyond the pale.

...

In response, D & P executive director Michael Casey released a most unworthy statement, obscuring rather than addressing the main point of the archbishop’s decision. Defiantly, it went on to defend the centre’s “outstanding work in defending the lives of the most vulnerable in Mexican society, including migrants, women and indigenous people.” The unborn notably did not make that list.

...

Does the actual work of D & P advance the Gospel of Christ, including the Gospel of life? The answer should be clear. The events of the last week demonstrate that it is not.

And question to any D & ; P defenders who might troll my combox about how they do defend the Gospel of Life:

Do you believe in fetal rights? That's the first question.

If you do not, you've proven our point.

I've never known a D & P supporter to answer that question.

Personal Announcement

I've been meaning to get around to doing this.

Well folks, I am now 12 weeks pregnant (LMP).

My due date is October 15th.

Yesterday I went to the first IPS ultrasound screening. I saw my baby. I was so moved. How can you not be?

Anyhow, I'm very excited about this new member of my family and I look forward to birth.

Proving once again that "Trust Women" is a dumb slogan

Jivin' J comments on a pro-abort's take on sex selection abortions:

There is no simple answer for pro-choicers because there is no valid answer. If you accept the ideology that women should have complete bodily autonomy and you live by the slogan "Trust Women" then there's no weaseling in a "well....I'm in favor of bodily autonomy for women whose decisions aren't effected by cultural differences" or a "Trust Women.... whose choices I agree with."

If you second guess women on ANY of their reproductive choices then....

YOU DON'T TRUST WOMEN.

That's just not limited to sex selection abortions.

That includes women who decide they want to talk to sidewalk counsellors or visit Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

What? You don't trust them to make the right judgements? You don't trust them to get the correct information or see through the pro-life strategy?

What makes their alleged ignorance not okay when it comes to sidewalk counsellors, but perfectly okay when it comes to the true nature of abortion, i.e. it kills a human being?

It boils down to whether the pro-aborts agree with your information or not.

And if they don't think you have the correct information or the correcti judgement, then they don't trust women.

Frankly, sometimes some women are stupid and irrational, and they are not trustworthy. But that never fits in with the feminist conception of female infallibility when it comes to women's reproductive choices.

What it boils down to is that women should be able to do what they want with regardless of the consequences to other individuals and the rest of society.

Men are not treated that way, by the way.

But feminists live in a delusional world where power is the only thing that matters.

On the "unmet need" for contraception

I'm so glad that a pro-abort has confronted the problem with the typical understanding of the phrase "unmet need for contraception":

If women are sexually active, want to avoid pregnancy, and are not using a method of contraception, the thinking is that someone should make sure they have one. High unmet need has been a strong argument for increasing the availability of contraceptive supplies and improving distribution systems.(...)

The problem is with how it is measured. Never do the women themselves get to decide whether they need/want contraception. Instead, researchers use large surveys like the Demographic and Health Surveys to identify women they think need contraceptives (usually those who are sexually active and not actively seeking pregnancy). That’s the “need” in “unmet need.” In the classic formulation of unmet need, if women are currently using a method of contraception, their need is met.

...

Instead, unmet need should be defined as wanting to use contraception but not being able to. Taking the shortcut of not asking women what they want but instead presuming need is presumptuous, possibly paternalistic
...

The other major shortcoming of the typical measure of unmet need is that simply using a method of contraception does not mean one’s contraceptive needs are met. Examining how satisfied women are with the methods they use and the hardships they face in getting an adequate supply could improve the quality and effectiveness of family planning services. Even among women who have access to contraceptives, there is widespread inconsistent and incorrect use. Supplies run out and a woman may have trouble using a method even when she wants it. She may not have ongoing support if problems arise during use. Addressing these unmet needs is as important as the unmet need to adopt a method.

I don't wish to promote in any way the use of contraception.

I simply want to point out that demand for contraception is not nearly as great as many Westerners think it is.

I would also like to point out that one of the problems with contraception is that most of it is dependent on the existence of a good healthcare system.

If you use The Pill, you usually need a prescription. You need a doctor who knows the product and see if you are a good candidate. If you get an IUD, you need a doctor who knows how to insert it. (And that's besides the issues of distribution and availability.)

What if you don't have a good healthcare system?

But then again, if you have a good healthcare system, maternal mortality rate goes down by the very fact without contraception, because it would be able to deal with complicated pregnancies.

Natural methods do not rely on the healthcare system. All women are good candidates, although the more complicated cases may require more consultation with an expert (but not necessarily a doctor).

As long as you can read mucus, as long as you can mark notes on a piece of paper, you can track your fertility.

It would be far more benevolent to promote healthcare and natural methods that trying to foist methods that are alien to people's culture.

Abortion Advocates Threaten Pro-Lifers, Slash Tires in Violence

I see a pattern here.


And no, you are not going to stop us. Not with violence. Not with anything.

You will lose. Deal with it. Fetal rights is in our future.

Belgian Archbishop gets pie in the face...not once...but four times

Msgr Leonard of Brussels has been a strong defender of life and traditional values in Belgium.

And for this he has earned the ire of homofascist activists. He was pied once as he entered the university building and three times when he entered the room.

I don't usually use the term "homofascist" but when you want to censor people using aggression, that is what you are: a fascist.

I've noticed a pattern with leftists. When they don't like your message, they try to censor you. They do this with abortion and they do this with homosexuality.

The pro-aborts slogan is "trust women" but it never seems to apply when it comes to ideas. The message seems to be Don't Trust Women (or men) to make their own judgements about what's true or not.

But you know what? Msgr Leonard isn't going to back down. And it only makes the homofascists look like adolescents unable to debate properly.

It mystifies me that people think that this kind of behaviour advances their cause.

And oh, by the way, the video calls for more such assaults against people who support traditional values.

Way to go, brown shirts. Violence and silliness. What a lethal mix to your cause. How do you people expect anyone to take you seriously?

You know how they say that abortions laws don't stop abortions?

But that's only if abortion laws are not enforced.

Case in point: Jamaica.

50% of GPs and 71% of obstetricians had performed abortions, despite it being illegal.

And interestingly:

only 25.3% had moral or religious objections, and only 9.4% refused to perform abortions because they were illegal.

If 10% of your doctors are not deterred by the law, then there's your problem.

I suspect enforcement is lax in Jamaica if only ten per cent of doctors are not deterred by the law.

And another problem is that most doctors do not appear to have a moral problem with abortion.

This underscores two points:

1) You can't compare situations where abortion is legal with countries where abortion is illegal, but laws are not well enforced.

2) In order to effectively criminalize abortions, doctors must be onside.

If doctors are willing to perform abortions, you can have all the abortion laws in the world, the medical establishment will effectively lobby to legalize them, using their "medical expertise" to counter pro-life facts.

Fr. Rosica slams LifeSiteNews and Catholic Bloggers...Again

Question:

What expertise does Father Rosica have on this issue?

I mean, besides a degree in Communications?

Does he actually spend time reading blogs? And by that I don't mean "official blogs" like the kind from Salt N Light that censor what people are really thinking...

Like grassroots Catholic blogs.

"We have rules among the staff. We don't put things on the blog that are deprecating, implicating, or foolish," Father Rosica said. "Websites and blogs, especially Catholic ones, tend to concentrate on negative messages."

What negative messages would those be, per chance?

That professional Catholics are screwing up the Church?

Ah, I see where he might feel alienated by that message.

Father Rosica said a study of Catholic blogs involving non-Catholics and non-Christians looking at Catholic blogs found they were filled with "filth, hate, conjecture, and innuendo."

You mean like this statement? Where's the study?

He says Catholic blogs shouldn't be deprecating, but he deprecates.

Another case of do as I say, not as I do?

Many of these blogs often have "vitriolic, vindictive messages," he said, citing the LifeSite News blog as a major culprit.

But he never mentions whether what is being said is true.

"The LifeSite blog is not a Catholic blog. It is not an authoritative blog," he said. "It has caused huge problems in the North American church, not just in Canada."

This is where Fr. Rosica shows his lack of knowledge.

LifesiteNews is not really a blog. It's a news gathering source, whose articles are used by other blogs. It existed even before the advent of blogs.

LifeSite and other blogs, Father Rosica said, are especially dangerous when many priests "read the blogs more than they read the Scriptures or the Vatican website." He said many laypeople are referencing the blogs more than the authoritative teachings of the Church.

Well maybe if the priests spoke up on the teachings of the Church, including those that have hard sayings maybe this would not be such a problem.

"Some blogs have coarsened Catholic dialogue in the past years: the anti-Obama Catholic blogs; the so-called pro-life blogs, that may be advocating pro-life, but they are decimating persons and reputations," Father Rosica noted.

Some people deserve to be put down, and some people have false reputations.

Fr. Rosica constantly shows more concern about niceness than Truth.

VIDEO: The Good Schism

I hate the title, but you see what he's getting at: which is that faithful Catholics have pretty much abandoned the official, institutional Church.

Which is grossly unfortunate. Because one of the marks of Catholicism is union with the bishop.

No bishop, no church.

But because so many of the bishops are lukewarm in their adherence and proclamation of the Catholic faith, it's like we're forced to become a church unto ourselves to live out the teachings as they are set down by the Magisterium.

But in trying to be faithful to the Magisterium and distancing ourselves from the bishop and his entourage, we're becoming like protestants.

Ironic, eh?

Why do peope like Fr. Corapi, and Scott Hahn, and the whole Catholic celebrity star system attract so many faithful?

Because the Catholic faithful are starving.

It's not that Scott Hahn shouldn't have an audience-- he's a good guy.

But really, that kind of attachment we see towards some authors should be reserved to a bishop who tells it like it is.

It's a bit unnatural to hang on the words of simple priests and laypeople when it's the bishop who is the primary person responsible for feeding the flock.

How many bishops really deliver the faith in the fullness of the truth, with no modernism, no fear of hard truths, no fear of political correctness, no secular academic brainwashing?

I can't think of too many.

The bishops are busy doing everything BUT preaching the word, preaching the wholeness of Catholic teaching. Of course they give homelies and speeches and print messages. Dull dreary things that do not inspire. Messages so safe, so namby-pamby you wonder why you bother reading them at all.

At least if they quoted Church Fathers or the great writers of the ages, it might jolt a few Catholics out of their comfort zones.

But there's often no sense of organic continuity with the Catholic doctrinal and philosophical tradition. What the bishops say is often bound up in limp pop psychology and sing-song Christianity that a lot of us know off hand.

You know, this is why The Pope's book on Jesus is such a best seller and such fascinating read.

There's nothing in there that you've seen before. It's all brand new even to well-read Catholics such as myself. On every page you get a spanking new insight, a new fact that no one has ever told you before.

It's good to be reminded of basic Catholic teachings. But "love one another" becomes old, and we need a little more meat on the bone for that one.

Well the Pope offers a feast.

You don't get that kind of feast from the bishops today.  You don't even get the basic Church teachings.

And so that explains why orthodox Catholics huddle together in their communities, especially online.

I wish to God the bishops and the professional Catholic class would get it.

But I get the feeling the vast majority of them simply do not care and would almost rather not deal with us. They're too busy implementing their insipid agendas.

Canadian Catholic Bishops Comment on Cancellation of Share Lent speaker

From the CCCB website:

This past Friday, 1 April, the Most Reverend Terrence Prendergast, S.J., Archbishop of Ottawa, in consultation with Mr. Michael Casey, National Director of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, cancelled a visit by Father Luis Arriaga, S.J., Director of the Centre Prodh in Mexico City. Father Arriaga had been scheduled by CCODP as a Share Lent speaker. Earlier last week, Mr. Casey, in consultation with the Most Reverend Paul-André Durocher, had already cancelled the engagements by Father Arriaga in the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. The Centre Prodh was one of the Mexican groups that had been at the source of a controversy two years ago involving Development and Peace.

The decisions to cancel the speaking engagements were made in view of allegations about the Centre Prodh and Father Arriaga, because of which it appears that "prayer protests" were being planned. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Archdiocese of Ottawa and also Development and Peace have requested clarifications about Father Arriaga and Centre Prodh from the Archdiocese of Mexico City.

The CCCB General Secretary has worked closely with Archbishop Prendergast and Mr. Casey on this and continues to do so. In addition, the CCCB Standing Committee on CCODP will shortly discuss the questions which have been raised.

Development and Peace has been working closely over the past two years with the CCCB and what was formerly its Ad Hoc Committee on CCODP. The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace is committed to respect for life, and is making every effort to ensure its programs are in full compliance with Church teachings. The recent questions and concerns that have been expressed underscore the need for the CCCB Standing Committee and the importance of Development and Peace continuing to work in full collaboration with it.

D&P respects life?

Not for the unborn they don't.

Any commitment on their part to the right to life is, at best, nominal. At worst, just hypocritical: just lip-service to avoid conflict with their graces.

It does not take a pro-life genius to realize that giving money to feminist groups that push for abortion is not a sound idea.

But since they obviously don't pay attention to fetal rights issues, they don't care.

I'm a firm believer in the saying that the best predictor of future results is past results. What have been the past results of the CCCB and the professional Catholic class? Denial. Casting aspersions on LifeSiteNews and pro-life allies. Continued support for abortion-supporting groups. The only thing that change will be that D&P will make sure that the links between these groups and abortion is more nebulous. The nature of abortion rhetoric is that it's in the shadows. It goes under the cover of "reproductive rights". This vague phrase is deliberately used by feminists because it can cover a wide range of issues, whereas faithful Catholics can take it to mean something entirely orthodox.

We should really stop using the language of the enemy. If they use "reproductive rights" we have to invent a completely different phrase to make it clear that abortion is not included.

We need to make sure we are able to identify the opponents of fetal rights and the oppressors of the unborn.

All D&P reps have to do is state plainly " I support the legal right to life of the unborn" and follow through.

It won't happen. It hasn't happened up to now, even two years after the controversy started, it won't happen soon. If they were so keen on the right to life for the unborn, they'd be a bit more keen to show it, and not be categorized with people who support the murder of human beings.

But they don't really think of abortion as murder. Actions speak louder than words.

Development and Peace invites pro-life speaker in Quebec

For a change.

Proving that you do not have to support pro-abort groups to advance your agenda.

The article I linked to reports on the visit of Msgr. Nicolas Djomo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Congo, and Sister Marie-Bernard Alima, who is head of the bishops' Justice and Peace Commission.

Sister Marie-Bernard's main issue is sexual violence in the Congo. The Congo has been the scene of numerous conflicts for the past several years and rape is a frequent tactic of war.

However, Sister Marie-Bernard does not sanction the use of abortion in the cases of rape. In one article, she is quoted as saying that "it's too simple a solution to a complex issue. And in any case, the child is innocent."

Although the article mentions that Church-associated groups call on doctors known to practice abortions...

Sister Marie-Bernard is quoted in this article as calling on women to lobby against the Maputo Protocol, which would legalize chemical abortions, saying that women have a role in perpetuating the culture of life.

Now why can't Development and Peace limit themselves to groups headed by such individuals?

If it did, there would be no controversy.

But the truth is: there are whole swaths of professional and social justice Catholics who do not care if the unborn are slaughtered. They do not believe that the unborn are equal human beings and therefore entitled to human rights.

Until the Bishops call for accountability from Development and Peace and insist that all its principle workers support fetal rights, this scandal will continue. It's too bad. People like Sister Marie-Bernard really deserves our money.

Folks like Fr. Luis Arriaga do not.

The Lancet on HIV and Gay Men

Commentary from The Lancet on a study of MSM in France (men who have sex with men):

The approach used by Le Vu and colleagues adds substantial value for accurately understanding epidemic trajectories. Importantly, they show a persistent and high incidence of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) in France, a situation they describe as “out of control”, whereas HIV incidence has declined in all other major population groups.

...

The treatment as prevention strategy aims to reduce community viral load and assumes that this will reduce HIV transmission at the population level. Ecological studies and limited retrospective analyses suggest that treatment might have a preventative role for heterosexuals and people who inject drugs; however, it might be too optimistic to assume that this strategy can be effectively applied to MSM because of higher biological transmission rates and the sexual milieu of MSM. As explained by Le Vu and colleagues, such a milieu includes a high HIV prevalence, together with increased rates of unprotected anal sex with more partners and increased prevalence of sexually transmitted infections. Thus, merely intensifying a treatment as a prevention strategy for MSM without addressing other co-existing issues at the individual or community level is not going to lead to sustained changes to HIV epidemics.

So note what they're saying: there is a high prevalence of gay men who sleep around without using condoms.

The objection about straights also being promiscuous is often raised.

But here's the deal.

Collectively speaking, straights are not nearly as promiscuous as gays.

Why is that?

First it has to do with the procreative aspect of heterosexual sex. If pregnancy can result from your sexual activity, you are far less likely to engage in multiple relationships. There's more at stake than a mere orgasm.

Secondly, it also has to do with the nature of women. Women who are promiscuous eventually end up not being happy. Because sex is the icing on the cake of what they really want: undivided attention and love. And if they don't get that, they won't play ball. It's so hard-wired into women.

But male homosexual encounters don't have those characteristics. Men like sex. If they don't have to worry about babies or living up to female standards of emotional connection, they're going to have a lot of it. More so than if women only are involved.

This is a no brainer to anyone who stops and thinks about it. It's not a so-con thing, it's a common sense thing.

We've thrown condoms at the problem before. And it's not going to solve the problem.

The problem is the nature of male-on-male sexuality itself. It simply refuses to be restrained on a collective scale. Men, especially men unrestrained by a traditional moral code, like to think with their peckers.

The medical authorities will go on to examine the issue of why men take risks, blah blah blah as if the answer is evident in and of itself.

Who thinks of condoms when you're horny? Who likes the feeling of putting that little bit of latex? You want to be carried away by the emotion, no think about "practical" things like HIV transmission. It's the same reason men convince women to have sex even with the risk of pregnancy. At that particular moment in time, they don't care. Also consider the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community. If you're high, are you really concerned about your health?

The real solution to the HIV transmission issue in MSM is abstinence, but no one would dare suggest such a thing. It goes counter to the very nature of the sexual ethos that leads to all this HIV transmission. Of course, it would save lives and prevent countless untold heartache.

But perhaps many men would rather be promiscuous and suffer with HIV than actually eliminate the risk of transmission.

What is really necessary is a change of heart. Not a change of policy. Not a new prevention scheme. It's all window dressing. The men will grow weary of all this practicality and will eventually go back to their old ways. The political correctness is not saving anyone.

The Pope Drinks Fanta

A documentary about the Pope's Life with air on the History Channel (in the UK).

It's called Secret Access: The Vatican.

They always make it sound so...secret and nebulous.

The documentary shows the Pope washing down his dinner with a glass of Fanta.

I haven't seen Fanta in years. I didn't even know they still made the stuff.

But yup, it's still around.

I wish they would show this documentary in Canada. Could be interesting Easter time fare.

REAL Women of Canada Annual Spring Luncheon

Hello all, just thought I'd put the word out:

REAL Women of Canada Annual Spring Luncheon: 

WHEN: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 11:30 to 2:30 pm

WHERE: the Best Western Conference Centre, 700 Lakeshore Drive, North Bay, ON.

The speaker is Garnett Genuis, from the Canadian Centre for Policy and Training, Ottawa.

Topic: "Winning the Argument and Winning Elections".

With a federal election on the horizon, Mr.Genuis will provide information on how we can vote responsibly. He will also touch on the major social issues facing Canadian voters.

Tickets are $20.00 a person and can be purchased from Jeannine, 705- 724-3424, or Shirley, 705-472-7964.

Tickets must be purchased in advance. All are welcome, members, non-members, men and women. This event is sponsored by the Northern Ontario Chapter of REAL Women of Canada.

How to really solve poverty in Africa

Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith:

You might find yourself wondering just what the solution to poverty in Africa is, if it is not government aid. Professor Philip Booth’s book provides a pretty good checklist of the necessary preconditions for economic development. In other words, if these things are not in place, you can forget about growth.

They are:
• Good governance
• The protection of private property
• Freedom of contract
• Enforcement of contracts
• The rule of law
• The authority of law
• The absence of corruption.

This is Economics 101 and should be taught in high school.

Christina at Real Choice is out of a job

Does anyone have anything to offer her?

Come on. She's done a world of good to the pro-life cause. Someone must have something for her.

Lord, hear our prayer. St. Joseph pray for this woman to find work.

VIDEO: A Showcase of Crappy Masses

We've all been there. Those insufferable, gimmicky, hootenanny type masses, so cheesy and ooey gooey with syrupy sweetness they give you a real taste of purgatory.

The video is long and I don't care for Pink Floyd, but the pictures speak for themselves.

If there are any Catholic bishops, priests or seminarians who happen to drop by-- for goodness sake have mercy on us and don't repeat these mistakes. Awful, awful, awful. I'm not a Latin Mass kind of gal-- the Novus Ordo is fine. Just do it with reverence and with an eye towards God and the Passion. That is all.

I lifted this from Bad Vestments. It's exactly what it says it is.

Man brandishes gun at pro-lifer outside Planned Parenthood

Who's harassing who?

Fr. Luis Arriaga's presentations in Ottawa CANCELLED (not an April Fool's!)

I love you Archbishop Terry!!!

Way to go SoCon or Bust for their investigative blogging!!!
Development and Peace: fetal rights are human rights. You can't be a Catholic organization and then give money to organizations that want to oppress our unborn brothers and sisters. You might as well learn that lesson now.

QUOTATION: Putting God First

Matthew and Luke recount the three temptations of Jesus that reflect the inner struggle over his own particular mission and, at the same time, address the question as to what truly matters in human life. At the heart of all temptations, as we see here, is the act of pushing God aside because we perceive him as secondary, if not actually superfluous and annoying, in comparison with all the apparently far more urgent matters that fill our lives. Constructing a world by our own lights, without reference to God, building on our own foundation; refusing to acknowledge the reality of anything beyond the political and the material, while setting God aside as an illusion—that is the temptation that threatens us in many varied forms.

Moral posturing is part and parcel of that temptation. It does not invite us directly to do evil—no, that would be far too blatant. It pretends to show us a better way, where we finally abandon our illusions and throw ourselves in the work of actually making the world a better place. It claims, moreover, to speak for true realism: what’s real is what’s right there in front of us—power and bread. By comparison, the things of God fade into unreality, into a secondary world that no one needs.

God is the issue: Is he real, reality itself, or isn’t he? Is he good, or do we have to invent good ourselves? The God question is the fundamental question, and it sets us down right at the crossroads of human existence.


--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a huge problem in the Church today: treating God and his Revelation as real.

I often get the impression that certain Catholics-- leftists in particular, but it can afflict any body of people-- discover the "secular truths" first, then put those truths in God's mouth. So, for instance, they say that abortion should be legal so that women don't kill themselves with coathanger abortions-- as if taking responsibility for themselves and not having the abortion wouldn't have the same effect.

The Magisterium is clear on a number of issues. But many Catholics simply do not assent to it. In fact, to them, it's superfluous. They treat Church teaching as suggested guidelines or best practices, instead of the infallible doctrine that it is.