Question: why isn't his accuser named? I get that the Church wouldn't name her, but is there some special rule that specifies she can't be named?
I'm anxious to see how this lawsuit unfolds.
If indeed this is a false accusation, then I hope this sends a message to people who might consider laying false charges against a priest.
Fr. Corapi is fortunate in that he has the funds to do this. Other priests do not.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
FCP commends Toronto mayor, condemns homosexual coercion
Issued from Phil Lees, leader of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario:
Read more at the No Apologies website.
Family Coalition Party press release – June 29, 2011
Rob Ford is not going to Gay Pride!
Thank you for refusing to be coerced!
Hamilton – Rob Ford is not going to Gay Pride! Thank you for refusing to be coerced!
Mr. Ford is away with the family on holidays and has refused to attend the Toronto Gay Pride Event. All of Ontario’s traditional principled people are grateful that the mayor of Toronto is not allowing the leftist sexual liberals to coerce him into participating.
Read more at the No Apologies website.
Stephen Harper: Not the conservative he once was
Gerry Nicholls points out the obvious.
Look, if Stephen Harper does not deliver on a conservative platform, don't vote for him.
Vote CHP. Vote Freedom Party. Vote for an independent or hand in a blank vote.
But don't vote for someone who is going to screw you over after you give him your vote.
Have some self-respect.
Of course, we really vote for MP's. Some MP's are worth supporting no matter who's the leader of the party. But they are few and far between.
The majority are just drones. In the next election, if your candidate is not an enthusiastic fiscal and social conservative, then don't even bother.
Electoral victory is meaningless if you do not get what you want. At the very least we should be getting balanced budgets.
Look, if Stephen Harper does not deliver on a conservative platform, don't vote for him.
Vote CHP. Vote Freedom Party. Vote for an independent or hand in a blank vote.
But don't vote for someone who is going to screw you over after you give him your vote.
Have some self-respect.
Of course, we really vote for MP's. Some MP's are worth supporting no matter who's the leader of the party. But they are few and far between.
The majority are just drones. In the next election, if your candidate is not an enthusiastic fiscal and social conservative, then don't even bother.
Electoral victory is meaningless if you do not get what you want. At the very least we should be getting balanced budgets.
ACTION ALERT: Vote forr Ezra Levant for Best Political Book!
Vote for Ezra Levant's Shakedown as best political book in the last 25 years.
If you haven't read it, you should. It's a page turner.
Pass it on.
H/T Kathy Shaidle
If you haven't read it, you should. It's a page turner.
Pass it on.
H/T Kathy Shaidle
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Ottawa archbishop to disgruntled D&P supporters: Don’t want to be pro-life? Go start your own group
Oh I so love you Archbishop Terry.
And the same should be said for ANY organization claiming to be Catholic: if you don't like Catholic teaching, don't claim to be Catholic.
And did you notice how he used plain language, and not that politicalese that Catholics are constantly fed?
He must read my blog. Or I'd like to think he does.
And the same should be said for ANY organization claiming to be Catholic: if you don't like Catholic teaching, don't claim to be Catholic.
And did you notice how he used plain language, and not that politicalese that Catholics are constantly fed?
He must read my blog. Or I'd like to think he does.
FYI: Federal government seeking consultation from Canadians for budget
From a federal government press release:
Today, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance is inviting Canadians to participate in its annual pre-budget consultation process. The Committee will invite witnesses to appear at hearings in Ottawa and in the communities indicated below. The results of our consultations, including our recommendations, will be tabled in the House of Commons in December 2011. The suggestions by Canadians and by the Committee will be considered by the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2012 federal budget.
...
In this context, and bearing in mind the fiscal situation of the federal government, the Committee is interested in receiving the views of individuals and groups about four primary issues: how to achieve a sustained economic recovery in Canada, how to create quality sustainable jobs, how to ensure relatively low rates of taxation, and how to achieve a balanced budget. In particular, the thoughts and suggestions of Canadians about how to attain high levels of job growth and business investment in order to ensure shared prosperity and a high standard of living for all are being sought.
Here's an idea: how about emailing Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance.
Today, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance is inviting Canadians to participate in its annual pre-budget consultation process. The Committee will invite witnesses to appear at hearings in Ottawa and in the communities indicated below. The results of our consultations, including our recommendations, will be tabled in the House of Commons in December 2011. The suggestions by Canadians and by the Committee will be considered by the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2012 federal budget.
...
In this context, and bearing in mind the fiscal situation of the federal government, the Committee is interested in receiving the views of individuals and groups about four primary issues: how to achieve a sustained economic recovery in Canada, how to create quality sustainable jobs, how to ensure relatively low rates of taxation, and how to achieve a balanced budget. In particular, the thoughts and suggestions of Canadians about how to attain high levels of job growth and business investment in order to ensure shared prosperity and a high standard of living for all are being sought.
Here's an idea: how about emailing Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Poland to vote on historic bill banning all abortions after massive grassroots campaign
Offer up prayers!
If this were to pass, this would be huge.
First Hungary, then Poland...
It could be a trend.
If this were to pass, this would be huge.
First Hungary, then Poland...
It could be a trend.
Mugabe’s communion angers Africa
What?
If they won't deny communion to pro-aborts, giving it to murderous dictators is only the next step.
What a load of bulls***.
It is not just a matter of internal forum.
He is a known human rights violator and his behaviour causes scandal to the Church.
Did he publicly repent of his actions (which would be required in cases of internal forum) No? Then he has not repented and cannot be assumed to be in a state of grace.
If they won't deny communion to pro-aborts, giving it to murderous dictators is only the next step.
Cardinal Wilfried Napier tried to throw water over the firestorm of problems, explaining that «for any Christian, the reception of communion is a personal matter, consciously made in front of God. As such, it is a matter for the ‘internal forum’, in other words the space between God and the believer. No-one, except Mugabe, and perhaps his confessor, can know if he was in a state of grace when he presented himself to receive communion in St. Peter’s Square. It is not up to us to ask Mugabe about his "internal forum"»
What a load of bulls***.
It is not just a matter of internal forum.
He is a known human rights violator and his behaviour causes scandal to the Church.
Did he publicly repent of his actions (which would be required in cases of internal forum) No? Then he has not repented and cannot be assumed to be in a state of grace.
Catholic bishops in the public square, in a nutshell
SoCon or Bust:
You can know which bishops are truly orthodox in the Canadian Church, and which aren't.
Look at the bishops are willing to put their necks on the line.
The bishops who are willing to get into the trenches, confront evil, and speak plainly about it, those are the orthodox bishops.
The bishops who only address issues in a politically correct manner, who never call evil by its name, and who only use diplomatic politicalese to take about the faith (when it's not just pap), well...those ones are using orthodoxy for a cover. When they don't actually contradict Church teaching.
I think many bishops have this strange idea that they have to save the furniture (to borrow a Quebec phrase) when they are in the public square: that they must save the schools, save the church heritage funds, the charitable tax status and so forth, when they act in public, as if that's what really mattered.
There is no point to having beautiful churches, Catholic schools, a charitable status and so forth if the Catholic faith is not taught plainly.
It would be better for Catholics to attend Mass in a tent using dollar store vessels than for bishops to forsake teaching the Catholic faith.
I love beautiful churches. It kills me when I see one being sold off or demolitioned. But what's more beautiful, the church, or the truth that justifies its existence? It would be far better to destroy St. Joseph's Oratory or Ste. Anne de Beaupré rather than one point of faith be betrayed.
I could go on in the same vein about Catholic schools and taxes.
Our strength is our fidelity. You can't compromise with the truth.
You see, folks, when you see a bishop come out strongly against gay “marriage”, it really doesn’t tell us too much about what he really believes. In fact, many of these bishops just talk a good line in order to give themselves political “cover” against the “conservative” factions of the church. Sure, they’ll sign a strong statement defending marriage or put out a strongly-worded press release. They might even go on a radio program to defend the Church’s teaching, but wink-wink, nudge-nudge, it’s really all for show. No one is going to get hurt here. There’ll be no excommunications. There’ll be no disciplinary action. There’ll be no stripping of the name “Catholic” from schools or organizations who betray the faith. In short, it’s all about paper opposition. It’s just another uncomfortable, political issue that will be water under the bridge in a week or so. Time to move on. More important things to address, you know. And so it goes…issue after issue…decade after decade.
...
For the simple reason that many of them are homosexuals themselves, or at the very least homosexualist sympathizers. When you eliminate all of the other possibilities, the remaining one, however improbable or inconvenient, is the truth.
You can know which bishops are truly orthodox in the Canadian Church, and which aren't.
Look at the bishops are willing to put their necks on the line.
The bishops who are willing to get into the trenches, confront evil, and speak plainly about it, those are the orthodox bishops.
The bishops who only address issues in a politically correct manner, who never call evil by its name, and who only use diplomatic politicalese to take about the faith (when it's not just pap), well...those ones are using orthodoxy for a cover. When they don't actually contradict Church teaching.
I think many bishops have this strange idea that they have to save the furniture (to borrow a Quebec phrase) when they are in the public square: that they must save the schools, save the church heritage funds, the charitable tax status and so forth, when they act in public, as if that's what really mattered.
There is no point to having beautiful churches, Catholic schools, a charitable status and so forth if the Catholic faith is not taught plainly.
It would be better for Catholics to attend Mass in a tent using dollar store vessels than for bishops to forsake teaching the Catholic faith.
I love beautiful churches. It kills me when I see one being sold off or demolitioned. But what's more beautiful, the church, or the truth that justifies its existence? It would be far better to destroy St. Joseph's Oratory or Ste. Anne de Beaupré rather than one point of faith be betrayed.
I could go on in the same vein about Catholic schools and taxes.
Our strength is our fidelity. You can't compromise with the truth.
Monday, June 27, 2011
New Canadian bishops’ document seeks to rescue youth from ‘gay culture’
Here's my beef with this document.
It neatly presents Catholic teaching. Who's actually going to implement it?
The Catechism already said what this document says. And there is widespread dissent against Church teaching on homosexuality. So what's going to change with this document?
We hear stories of homosexual dating in the seminaries. We hear of priests denouncing Church teaching on homosexuality. Fr. Raymond Gravel even celebrated a gay-pride Mass in St. Pierre-Apôtre Church in Montreal.
Why is this allowed to happen?
Nothing ever happens to any priest or professional Catholic who dissents from Church doctrine.
And if nothing happens to the priests, then nobody is going to take this document seriously.
A few MP's got their knuckles rapped during the same-sex marriage debate some years ago. I note that these disciplinary measures were few and far between. And I've never heard of a priest or a catechist being reprimanded in the same way for their opposition to Church teaching. It seems a little unfair for MP's to pay the price, when dissenting clergy is an even bigger problem. If clergy don't tell MP's what the truth is, how are they to be expected to act and vote in accordance to Catholic beliefs? And more broadly, how are the Catholic faithful expected to adhere to Catholic doctrine?
Look, nobody wants to beat Catholic doctrine into people. But on the flipside, if you're in charge of a diocese or a parish, or educating children, you should be expected to uphold Catholic doctrine.
And we know that doesn't happen.
The only way the the Catholic Bishops' declarations are going to be taken seriously as more than mere lip service to Magisterial teaching is if they start getting serious with making sure that their Catholic personnel are orthodox. And if they're not, fire them. If they are not qualified for the job, don't take them on.
Until the bishops make this their policy, the documents they issue will remain a dead letter. They undermine their own authority and credibility when they fail to make sure those working under them don't uphold the same teachings. It gives the faithful the impression that they are not expected to adhere to Catholic doctrine, either.
What this would mean, concretely, to begin with, is only accept seminarians who are faithful to Catholic teaching. If a potential seminarian doesn't understand the notion of "faithful to the Magisterium" he probably isn't ready for the priesthood.
Only hire seminary professors who who are orthodox.
Only hire chancellory staff who are orthodox.
Only assign orthodox priests in parishes.
If there is a widespread doctrinal controversy in one's diocese, tell people what the truth is, and then discipline those who are recalcitrant.
Until the bishops start doing this en masse, these documents will have no effect. So long as bishops act as administrators, and not people in charge of upholding and transmitting the truth, the faithful will not take them seriously: neither the lukewarm nor the orthodox, and especially not the dissenters.
It neatly presents Catholic teaching. Who's actually going to implement it?
The Catechism already said what this document says. And there is widespread dissent against Church teaching on homosexuality. So what's going to change with this document?
We hear stories of homosexual dating in the seminaries. We hear of priests denouncing Church teaching on homosexuality. Fr. Raymond Gravel even celebrated a gay-pride Mass in St. Pierre-Apôtre Church in Montreal.
Why is this allowed to happen?
Nothing ever happens to any priest or professional Catholic who dissents from Church doctrine.
And if nothing happens to the priests, then nobody is going to take this document seriously.
A few MP's got their knuckles rapped during the same-sex marriage debate some years ago. I note that these disciplinary measures were few and far between. And I've never heard of a priest or a catechist being reprimanded in the same way for their opposition to Church teaching. It seems a little unfair for MP's to pay the price, when dissenting clergy is an even bigger problem. If clergy don't tell MP's what the truth is, how are they to be expected to act and vote in accordance to Catholic beliefs? And more broadly, how are the Catholic faithful expected to adhere to Catholic doctrine?
Look, nobody wants to beat Catholic doctrine into people. But on the flipside, if you're in charge of a diocese or a parish, or educating children, you should be expected to uphold Catholic doctrine.
And we know that doesn't happen.
The only way the the Catholic Bishops' declarations are going to be taken seriously as more than mere lip service to Magisterial teaching is if they start getting serious with making sure that their Catholic personnel are orthodox. And if they're not, fire them. If they are not qualified for the job, don't take them on.
Until the bishops make this their policy, the documents they issue will remain a dead letter. They undermine their own authority and credibility when they fail to make sure those working under them don't uphold the same teachings. It gives the faithful the impression that they are not expected to adhere to Catholic doctrine, either.
What this would mean, concretely, to begin with, is only accept seminarians who are faithful to Catholic teaching. If a potential seminarian doesn't understand the notion of "faithful to the Magisterium" he probably isn't ready for the priesthood.
Only hire seminary professors who who are orthodox.
Only hire chancellory staff who are orthodox.
Only assign orthodox priests in parishes.
If there is a widespread doctrinal controversy in one's diocese, tell people what the truth is, and then discipline those who are recalcitrant.
Until the bishops start doing this en masse, these documents will have no effect. So long as bishops act as administrators, and not people in charge of upholding and transmitting the truth, the faithful will not take them seriously: neither the lukewarm nor the orthodox, and especially not the dissenters.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Here's a newsflash Warren Kinsella
Most people don't care who attends the gay pride parade.
It doesn't affect their vote one whit, whether they're gay or straight.
I would venture to say that most people don't care what people's stance on gay issues are. If there are indeed gays in Harper's entourage as you allege, that would be one proof of that.
Look, if some gay candidate says he's going to vote pro-life, I'm voting for him.
The gay pride parade is not a blip on most people's radar.
It doesn't affect their vote one whit, whether they're gay or straight.
I would venture to say that most people don't care what people's stance on gay issues are. If there are indeed gays in Harper's entourage as you allege, that would be one proof of that.
Look, if some gay candidate says he's going to vote pro-life, I'm voting for him.
The gay pride parade is not a blip on most people's radar.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
BC father of autistic girl has child taken away
Totally ridiculous.
She's not abused. She's healthy. But the government has decided that this single father of three children (two of whom are autistic) is too much for him to handle.
How would they know?
He did nothing wrong.
They just decided that he's overloaded.
Here's an idea: If you're going to waste taxpayer's money putting this child in a home, why not just use it to pay for a special worker to help him out?
Not that I'm a big fan of state intervention, but it would be a better expenditure of resources.
And here's another question: what about mom? I mean we don't know what mom's situation is, maybe there's a special reason why she doesn't have custody of the kids. But shouldn't mom have been the first choice to place the kids? Like maybe dad take two kids, and mom take one?
Were there no other relatives available to help?
Child Protection is totalitarian. It's the only word for it.
She's not abused. She's healthy. But the government has decided that this single father of three children (two of whom are autistic) is too much for him to handle.
How would they know?
“Basically, what they’re saying is I’m a single dad and I have two autistic kids and my other son and it’s too much for me to handle. So, they’re going to take one of my kids away to lighten my load,” said Derek on Tuesday, after learning he wouldn’t even be able to see his daughter until a hearing determines access rights.
He did nothing wrong.
They just decided that he's overloaded.
Here's an idea: If you're going to waste taxpayer's money putting this child in a home, why not just use it to pay for a special worker to help him out?
Not that I'm a big fan of state intervention, but it would be a better expenditure of resources.
And here's another question: what about mom? I mean we don't know what mom's situation is, maybe there's a special reason why she doesn't have custody of the kids. But shouldn't mom have been the first choice to place the kids? Like maybe dad take two kids, and mom take one?
Were there no other relatives available to help?
Child Protection is totalitarian. It's the only word for it.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Fr. John Corapi.... Not seeking laicization?
The news is starting to spread on facebook.
Posting as the BlackSheepDog, Fr. Corapi wrote "I am not seeking laicization."
It's in this facebook thread, about 20 comments from the top. (I counted 23).
Not sure what this all means...
Posting as the BlackSheepDog, Fr. Corapi wrote "I am not seeking laicization."
It's in this facebook thread, about 20 comments from the top. (I counted 23).
Not sure what this all means...
Miss Florida was born with Spina Bifida and Scoliosis
On the picture in this blogpost, she looks like she could be posing for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. So please use discretion.
The reason this is relevant to my blog is that a high number of children with spina bifida are aborted.
Thanks to the widespread use of folic acid, the number of unborn children diagnosed with spina bifida has been greatly reduced, but it's still a death sentence for the majority of those who are diagnosed.
What this points to is that a person born with spina bifida is not necessarily condemned to a life of suffering and hardship. Some people think that when they are aborting the child suffering from spina bifida, they're doing that child a favour. Clearly, that's not the case.
The reason this is relevant to my blog is that a high number of children with spina bifida are aborted.
Thanks to the widespread use of folic acid, the number of unborn children diagnosed with spina bifida has been greatly reduced, but it's still a death sentence for the majority of those who are diagnosed.
What this points to is that a person born with spina bifida is not necessarily condemned to a life of suffering and hardship. Some people think that when they are aborting the child suffering from spina bifida, they're doing that child a favour. Clearly, that's not the case.
The Development and Peace Scandal Continues: Fr. Luis Arriaga is not pro-life
SoCon or Bust blows the cover on Fr. Luis Arriaga. I knew his ambiguous statements on "Church teaching on abortion" pointed to his non-support.
Development and Peace: here's some advice-- stop digging. You don't have a clue what this is all about. Really, take some time to understand. Leave aside your ideological blinkers and try to think outside the socialist box. Only then will you really understand the nature of the controversy. You think it's about some great big right-wing conspiracy to oppress the poor and the marginalized. Until you get out of that thinking, you won't get it. Really.
If you really want this to all stop, start taking into account the rights of unborn children. And if you can't, there's the problem.
The statement that Fr. Arriaga refused to sign is the most basic profession of faith in the sanctity of life. It can honestly be called a litmus test. If you don’t agree with those basics, then you definitely can’t claim to be pro-life. Notice that the statement didn’t require any heroic virtue, such as promising to publicly witness to the sanctity of life or defending the unborn against hostile lawmakers. It’s the barebones minimum of assent to Church teaching and a statement that his organization is not linked to pro-abort groups. By refusing to assent, he has inevitably chosen dissent.
Not only did he refuse to sign, but he called the declaration “a violation of basic human rights.” Imagine that: a priest who views Church teaching on the sanctity of life and the crime of abortion to be a violation of basic human rights. The implication, of course, is that he considers abortion to be a basic human right.
What more needs to be said? This nails it. There’s no ambiguity here, no possible excuses that he was just co-signing a statement with a coalition of diverse interest groups. It doesn’t get any clearer than this. Straight from his own mouth and relayed by a union that is trying to portray him the best possible light.
...
For now, let it be settled once and for all that Fr. Arriaga was given the opportunity to assent to the sanctity of life and to distance his Centre from all the accusations about ties to pro-abortion groups, and yet he chose to reject the offer.
Development and Peace: here's some advice-- stop digging. You don't have a clue what this is all about. Really, take some time to understand. Leave aside your ideological blinkers and try to think outside the socialist box. Only then will you really understand the nature of the controversy. You think it's about some great big right-wing conspiracy to oppress the poor and the marginalized. Until you get out of that thinking, you won't get it. Really.
If you really want this to all stop, start taking into account the rights of unborn children. And if you can't, there's the problem.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Relieved someone said what I was thinking re: Canada Post Strike
The prize goes to Paul Tuns:
My reason for opposing government intrusion in this postal strike:
The government should follow the law, unless there's a compelling national emergency that makes it urgent to override it.
This is not an emergency.
Governments should not pass legislation catered to solving episodes it does not like. If it considers the strike law to be the problem, then it should have the courage to amend it instead of passing legislation every time strikes are deemed inconvenient. Imagine if it passed legislation to change a tax rate for a given corporation, or a law to free a certain prisoner it considers innocent.
That's not the way the law is supposed to work.
And why should this strike be so special as to warrant government attention, but not the strike at a private company? The government is favouring its crown corporation over its competitors. That's quite an unfair advantage.
Lorne Gunter describes some very valid reasons for not ordering Canada Post back to work, both tactical (a strike or lockout would increase support for eventual privatization) and practical (the Tories need not get involved in the dispute when they have a full agenda already). I would add another: it is simply wrong for the government to (further) intervene in the economy. Ordering employees back to work or ordering an employer to open back up for business is a massive intrusion into the economy and precisely the type of interference conservatives and libertarians should eschew. Too many on the Right are so reflexively anti-union that they applaud any intrusion that forces unionized workers back to their jobs.
My reason for opposing government intrusion in this postal strike:
The government should follow the law, unless there's a compelling national emergency that makes it urgent to override it.
This is not an emergency.
Governments should not pass legislation catered to solving episodes it does not like. If it considers the strike law to be the problem, then it should have the courage to amend it instead of passing legislation every time strikes are deemed inconvenient. Imagine if it passed legislation to change a tax rate for a given corporation, or a law to free a certain prisoner it considers innocent.
That's not the way the law is supposed to work.
And why should this strike be so special as to warrant government attention, but not the strike at a private company? The government is favouring its crown corporation over its competitors. That's quite an unfair advantage.
PSA: Chatroom and sexting slang for parents
I was looking for something quite different, but I came across this page with chatroom and sexting abbreviations for parents.
It's probably a good idea to learn these.
Also, some good advice for parents.
It's probably a good idea to learn these.
Also, some good advice for parents.
Abortioneer: I love abortion
PR Fail from abortioneer Vegan Vagina:
So Vegan Vagina won't eat an omelette, but will kill pain-capable babies and not feel an ounce of emotion about it. Heck, even Morgentaler wasn't that bad!
Yeah, that's the kind of warm, caring image the abortion industry wants to project. Not.
And they wonder why women don't want to call themselves feminists.
I’m an Abortioneer. I love abortion and all the good it does in this world. I have seen a 26 week abortion and handed the physician the instruments and did not think twice or have any feelings of sadness or disgust or ambivalence.
I am an ethical vegan. I am proud of the fact that I am intentional about every single food or drink that enters my body. I aim to respect animals in every way possible and that starts with what is on my plate and how I engage with food. I am healthier and happier not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually, and I know this is because I am vegan.
So Vegan Vagina won't eat an omelette, but will kill pain-capable babies and not feel an ounce of emotion about it. Heck, even Morgentaler wasn't that bad!
Yeah, that's the kind of warm, caring image the abortion industry wants to project. Not.
And they wonder why women don't want to call themselves feminists.
I love you Archbishop Terry: Prendergast tells D+P to be more pro-life
Ottawa Archbishop calls on D+P to show ‘unquestioned support of the right to life’
He must read my blog. I'm hoping anyway. :)
H/T: SoCon or Bust.
He must read my blog. I'm hoping anyway. :)
H/T: SoCon or Bust.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
I love Archbishop Chaput
Saith the good bishop:
There may come a time when Catholics might have to suffer going to jail for dispensing Catholic charity on Catholic terms. We already see it with sidewalk counsellors. It's only the tip of the iceberg.
“The more that Catholic universities or hospitals mute their religious identity; the more that Catholic social ministries weaken their religious character ... the less useful to the Gospel they become,” he said.
...
“Catholic social ministry begins and ends with Jesus Christ,” he said. “If it doesn’t, it isn’t Catholic.”
...
“And if our social work isn’t deeply, confidently and explicitly Catholic in its identity, then we should stop using the word 'Catholic.' It’s that simple.”
There may come a time when Catholics might have to suffer going to jail for dispensing Catholic charity on Catholic terms. We already see it with sidewalk counsellors. It's only the tip of the iceberg.
Pre-schoolers prefer same-ethnicity playmates: study
Here's another newsflash:
Children like to play with kids of their own gender.
People gravitate towards people like themselves. It doesn't mean they won't learn to appreciate different kinds of people.
But it's not racist, or sexist, or motivated by any kind of malevolent intention.
It's just easier to deal with people who think like you.
Children like to play with kids of their own gender.
People gravitate towards people like themselves. It doesn't mean they won't learn to appreciate different kinds of people.
But it's not racist, or sexist, or motivated by any kind of malevolent intention.
It's just easier to deal with people who think like you.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Two BC Pro-lifers convicted of violating Bubble Zone Law
But get no jail time.
They didn't talk to any abortion-minded women. They didn't even say abortion is murder. But they got arrested for protesting a law that silenced them.
There's leftist tyranny for you.
Quick update (five minutes after posting): this video shows what Don Spratt was doing on the street near the abortion clinic:
VANCOUVER, June 20, 2011 (RKRNews) — Two prominent pro-life activists were convicted of violating BC’s infamous “bubble zone” law in provincial court today, but will serve no jail time—and their convictions and sentences will be appealed.
Don Spratt was fined $1,000 fine and sentenced to two years’ probation; Cissy von Dehn was sentenced to two years’ probation.
Both were arrested June 19, 2009 for standing inside the “bubble zone” outside a building at 2525 Commercial Drive that houses an abortion mill, passing out copies of the Access to Abortion Services Act (the “bubble zone” law) while wearing sandwich-board signs that said “WARNING! YOU CAN BE ARRESTED UNDER BILL 48” and “BE INFORMED. READ BILL 48”.
They didn't talk to any abortion-minded women. They didn't even say abortion is murder. But they got arrested for protesting a law that silenced them.
There's leftist tyranny for you.
Quick update (five minutes after posting): this video shows what Don Spratt was doing on the street near the abortion clinic:
Monday, June 20, 2011
Maternal Mortality Among Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women
This is just an interesting passage I picked up from a book on pregnancy epidemiology (click on it to make it bigger):
"Maternal Mortality and Severe Maternal Morbidity", K.S. Joseph in Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology edited by Germaine M. Buck Louis, Robert W. Platt. Oxford University Press, 2011, p.212
What the authors say is that women who are pregnant or who have been recently pregnant are less likely to die than women who have not been pregnant.
So much for the "pregnancy is dangerous" meme I see from the poor-choicers in abortion debates.
"Maternal Mortality and Severe Maternal Morbidity", K.S. Joseph in Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology edited by Germaine M. Buck Louis, Robert W. Platt. Oxford University Press, 2011, p.212
What the authors say is that women who are pregnant or who have been recently pregnant are less likely to die than women who have not been pregnant.
So much for the "pregnancy is dangerous" meme I see from the poor-choicers in abortion debates.
Heartbeat International Introduces Marathons for Moms Fundraiser
From the Communique:
The website.
Most of the time running a half marathon is about finding your inner strength to master a physical challenge. Heartbeat International wants to challenge runners to make running a half marathon about helping moms find the inner strength to welcome new life. By signing up friends who pledge to support you financially mile by mile, tax-deductible donations can be made to M4M, or the local pregnancy center affiliated with Heartbeat International, at the completion of the race.
The website.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The poor choice movement does not get it
This is why the poor-choice movement is often considered morally bankrupt.
Because it's attitude towards life, new life, is so relativistic and unloving.
Sophia wrote, in the context of a blogpost on prenatal testing:
So for poor-choicers: Forcing a woman to give birth, i.e. to not kill, their child is morally reprehensible.
But not accepting your child unconditionally is not morally reprehensible?
The prochoice movement does not expect women to love their children unconditionally.
That's what it boils down to.
Does no one see the problem here?
Some of them might try to construe killing their offspring as a merciful act.
As if.
As if killing your child because of Down Syndrome is really an act of mercy.
Come on.
You don't destroy people you love. You try to help them get through their difficulties and improve themselves.
We've totally lost the meaning of love.
But poor-choicers don't get it. They do not understand the true meaning of love. They think anything they construe as "love" is loving because they erase some negative effects. It doesn't work that way. Love has its own meaning and its own rules.
Because it's attitude towards life, new life, is so relativistic and unloving.
Sophia wrote, in the context of a blogpost on prenatal testing:
Forcing women to give birth to an unwanted fetus is morally reprehensible
So for poor-choicers: Forcing a woman to give birth, i.e. to not kill, their child is morally reprehensible.
But not accepting your child unconditionally is not morally reprehensible?
The prochoice movement does not expect women to love their children unconditionally.
That's what it boils down to.
Does no one see the problem here?
Some of them might try to construe killing their offspring as a merciful act.
As if.
As if killing your child because of Down Syndrome is really an act of mercy.
Come on.
You don't destroy people you love. You try to help them get through their difficulties and improve themselves.
We've totally lost the meaning of love.
But poor-choicers don't get it. They do not understand the true meaning of love. They think anything they construe as "love" is loving because they erase some negative effects. It doesn't work that way. Love has its own meaning and its own rules.
"I was rescued from abortion"
This should be the next big pro-life campaign.
There must be thousands of young adults across North America who had been slated to die by abortion and who were saved by sidewalk counsellors.
It would be great if the pro-life movement can gather their stories. With as much detail as possible. Why did their mothers want an abortion? Who was the doctor scheduled to kill them (if they know)? What was the name of the sidewalk counsellor who saved them? (Or the CPC?) Do they have ultrasound pics of themselves? Did any of their other siblings die by abortion?
I think this could be big.
There must be thousands of young adults across North America who had been slated to die by abortion and who were saved by sidewalk counsellors.
It would be great if the pro-life movement can gather their stories. With as much detail as possible. Why did their mothers want an abortion? Who was the doctor scheduled to kill them (if they know)? What was the name of the sidewalk counsellor who saved them? (Or the CPC?) Do they have ultrasound pics of themselves? Did any of their other siblings die by abortion?
I think this could be big.
Oh those pro-lifers, they don't care about the living!
"Vatican invests $1 million in adult stem cell research"
If we can have an organization dedicated to social development, why not an organization dedicated to funding and promoting pro-life medical research?
With embryonic stem cell research widely performed, a Catholic wonders who he can donate to.
Such an organization would solve that problem.
If we can have an organization dedicated to social development, why not an organization dedicated to funding and promoting pro-life medical research?
With embryonic stem cell research widely performed, a Catholic wonders who he can donate to.
Such an organization would solve that problem.
From our blog: Hell, no? Hell, yes, say Baptists
Southern Baptists still believe in hell.
At their annual convention this week, they voted to affirm the reality of a literal hell, an “eternal, conscious punishment of the unregenerate.”
Here's what I wonder:
What percentage of the Catholic clergy is ready to affirm this belief in public? One wonders.
Canadian Catholic Bishops issue statement on Development and Peace
And say nothing of substance. They simply pledge to "dialogue".
Could someone in the episcopacy come out with something relatively candid and substantial on this topic, instead of relying on platitudes?
Bishops are supposed to be like fathers. I wouldn't expect a father to be coarse or harsh, but fathers use plain language with their kids. I find the bishops use a lot of langue de bois, or politicalese when they speak about Church issues. It makes me feel like they're acting like politicians and not parental figures.
Once in a while, I wish someone would be candid in the clergy. I didn't even mind Fr. Rosica calling us Taliban, or Bishop Fred Henry dumping on pro-lifers. When people say what they think, we can have an authentic conversation and not a diplomatic negotiation. We're family, not rival political parties.
Could someone in the episcopacy come out with something relatively candid and substantial on this topic, instead of relying on platitudes?
Bishops are supposed to be like fathers. I wouldn't expect a father to be coarse or harsh, but fathers use plain language with their kids. I find the bishops use a lot of langue de bois, or politicalese when they speak about Church issues. It makes me feel like they're acting like politicians and not parental figures.
Once in a while, I wish someone would be candid in the clergy. I didn't even mind Fr. Rosica calling us Taliban, or Bishop Fred Henry dumping on pro-lifers. When people say what they think, we can have an authentic conversation and not a diplomatic negotiation. We're family, not rival political parties.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Christian Heritage Party moves to establish provincial wings
And I am not happy.
I never wanted to join a party with a religious litmus test.
In the last provincial election, the FCP had two Muslim candidates, at least one non-religious candidate, and possibly candidates of other religious persuasions.
My goal in joining the FCP was to work with anyone who was pro-life and pro-family, whatever their personal theology.
There was always a tacit agreement that the CHP and the FCP would never move in on each other's turf. It appears that this agreement has been pushed aside.
I do not want my party swallowed up in the CHP fold. Please don't get me wrong: I like Jim Hnatiuk and many CHP members. They are good people. I support what they do. I just don't support the idea of a party based on one religion.
I have always supported the idea of Natural Law. Natural Law is open to people of all religions and none. When you make religion the litmus test, when you make the Bible the final authority, you turn off anyone who might not be of that particular religious persuasion from listening.
I do not see anything changing between now and the provincial elections. But that does not mean nothing can change afterwards.
I never wanted to join a party with a religious litmus test.
In the last provincial election, the FCP had two Muslim candidates, at least one non-religious candidate, and possibly candidates of other religious persuasions.
My goal in joining the FCP was to work with anyone who was pro-life and pro-family, whatever their personal theology.
There was always a tacit agreement that the CHP and the FCP would never move in on each other's turf. It appears that this agreement has been pushed aside.
I do not want my party swallowed up in the CHP fold. Please don't get me wrong: I like Jim Hnatiuk and many CHP members. They are good people. I support what they do. I just don't support the idea of a party based on one religion.
I have always supported the idea of Natural Law. Natural Law is open to people of all religions and none. When you make religion the litmus test, when you make the Bible the final authority, you turn off anyone who might not be of that particular religious persuasion from listening.
I do not see anything changing between now and the provincial elections. But that does not mean nothing can change afterwards.
Development and Peace employees are members of a pro-abortion union
Today, the CSN, a Quebec Labour Union, put out a press release regarding Development and Peace. It appears that Development and Peace has 60 employees who belong to that union.
CSN has taken strong pro-abortion stances in the past. CSN president Claudette Charbonneau has come out strongly in favour of abortion. It invited its members to sign a petition against Bill C-484.
It appears that Development and Peace employees are serving two masters.
The Bible says you cannot serve two masters.
I think it is absolutely unacceptable that a Catholic outfit serve a union that uses its dues to promote pro-abortion causes.
What are the bishops thinking?
Perhaps there's a reason why Development and Peace is headquartered in Montreal...
CSN has taken strong pro-abortion stances in the past. CSN president Claudette Charbonneau has come out strongly in favour of abortion. It invited its members to sign a petition against Bill C-484.
It appears that Development and Peace employees are serving two masters.
The Bible says you cannot serve two masters.
I think it is absolutely unacceptable that a Catholic outfit serve a union that uses its dues to promote pro-abortion causes.
What are the bishops thinking?
Perhaps there's a reason why Development and Peace is headquartered in Montreal...
Teens looks to parents as sexual role models: study
A little while back, there was a conversation in the combox about parental and peer influence.
I'd said that pro-life will win because we have more children, and children tend to adopt their parents' beliefs.
My argument was rebutted with the idea that peers are the greatest influence on teens.
This study says that teens look to parents for influence.
Is it conclusive by itself? Of course not. No study is.
But this just says what so-cons already know.
I'd said that pro-life will win because we have more children, and children tend to adopt their parents' beliefs.
My argument was rebutted with the idea that peers are the greatest influence on teens.
This study says that teens look to parents for influence.
Is it conclusive by itself? Of course not. No study is.
But this just says what so-cons already know.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Why is feminism still so afraid to focus on its flaws?
My answer: because if it did and corrected them, it wouldn't be feminism any more! (A must-read!):
Because if women did want that, what would happen to feminist goals? They would dissipate. You can't have affirmative action, or equal numbers of parliamentarians, CEO's, doctors, lawyers, engineers and so forth if not enough women want to work in such top positions.
Here's the truth: the world is run by men and it always will be. This is not a conspiracy meant to keep women down. It's simply a fact of life based on biological and psychological realities. Women have the babies and want to raise them. Men don't. Men are therefore free to climb the social, economic and political ladder, and women are not and, in general, do not want to-- or at least not at the cost of sacrificing motherhood.
That is not to say that women do not deserve opportunities. But there is a difference between desiring equal opportunities and equal outcomes, and it's the latter which makes feminism unpopular because it ingrains in feminist women an overweaning sense of entitlement. No, you are not entitled to a job equal to a man with equal seniority and equal pay if you decide to stay home and raise the children instead. That is what choice is about. There are opportunity costs, and it could mean that if enough women make those disadvantageous choices, women will be collectively less better off than men but that is their collective choice which, and here's the part they don't get: feminists do not respect that choice.
They cannot respect that choice because it contradicts their ideological goals as I said above. It contradicts their quest to "empower women", to make their numbers equal in every sphere of society; and if those numbers are not equivalent, they want their clout to be collectively equivalent to men's even if they have not earned that clout.
So when women decide to take up jobs in pink ghetto sectors where the pay is lousy, feminists do not respect that choice. They want women in higher paying jobs. And if women decide to work part-time rather than full time, feminists do not respect that choice: because it means women are not earning as much money as men. And so forth.
Feminists make women the victims of their own preferences and their own choices.
The reality is feminism is reluctant to admit these self-evident truths because it would sow the seeds of its own implosion. When you see reality as it is, feminism simply does not make sense.
Feminism is a doomed ideology. Its own premises are faulty. It claims to be about women, but it has stopped listetning to women long ago. It has lost any genuine claim to representing them or their interests.
But equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement, and not all of this is the fault of continuing chauvinism. Women bear the children and, far more often than not, they wish to be the primary carer for those children. At its most strident, feminism can be mistaken for an ideology designed to make women feel they are wrong to want that.
Because if women did want that, what would happen to feminist goals? They would dissipate. You can't have affirmative action, or equal numbers of parliamentarians, CEO's, doctors, lawyers, engineers and so forth if not enough women want to work in such top positions.
Here's the truth: the world is run by men and it always will be. This is not a conspiracy meant to keep women down. It's simply a fact of life based on biological and psychological realities. Women have the babies and want to raise them. Men don't. Men are therefore free to climb the social, economic and political ladder, and women are not and, in general, do not want to-- or at least not at the cost of sacrificing motherhood.
That is not to say that women do not deserve opportunities. But there is a difference between desiring equal opportunities and equal outcomes, and it's the latter which makes feminism unpopular because it ingrains in feminist women an overweaning sense of entitlement. No, you are not entitled to a job equal to a man with equal seniority and equal pay if you decide to stay home and raise the children instead. That is what choice is about. There are opportunity costs, and it could mean that if enough women make those disadvantageous choices, women will be collectively less better off than men but that is their collective choice which, and here's the part they don't get: feminists do not respect that choice.
They cannot respect that choice because it contradicts their ideological goals as I said above. It contradicts their quest to "empower women", to make their numbers equal in every sphere of society; and if those numbers are not equivalent, they want their clout to be collectively equivalent to men's even if they have not earned that clout.
So when women decide to take up jobs in pink ghetto sectors where the pay is lousy, feminists do not respect that choice. They want women in higher paying jobs. And if women decide to work part-time rather than full time, feminists do not respect that choice: because it means women are not earning as much money as men. And so forth.
Feminists make women the victims of their own preferences and their own choices.
Worse, feminism has accidentally promoted the idea that it's pretty easy to work and have children, with the right support in place. On even an average income, it's never easy, even once children are at secondary school (though it's certainly easier then). Your priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate.
For many women, that's a self-evident truth. But feminism forbids women from admitting too many self-evident truths, for fear that the utterance of them will encourage discrimination.
The reality is feminism is reluctant to admit these self-evident truths because it would sow the seeds of its own implosion. When you see reality as it is, feminism simply does not make sense.
Feminism is a doomed ideology. Its own premises are faulty. It claims to be about women, but it has stopped listetning to women long ago. It has lost any genuine claim to representing them or their interests.
Just interesting: Single mothers less poor than they were 15 years ago
Posting this tidbit FYI:
It'd be interesting to find out why this is the case: why are fewer single mothers poorer now than they were about 15 years ago.
About 196,000 of these children, or 31%, lived in a lone-parent family headed by a woman. Roughly 22% of children living with a single mother were in low income in 2009, compared with 56% in 1996.
It'd be interesting to find out why this is the case: why are fewer single mothers poorer now than they were about 15 years ago.
Development and Peace Scandal: Comic Relief
From the Support Development and Peace Blog:
I Laughed Out Loud when I read "mysterious and questionable groups".
You can tell these people are from Quebec. They live in their own bubble of Catholic dissent in French Quebec, never venturing into the world of people who actually follow Church teaching. I apologize to any faithful Quebec Catholic who may feel offended-- although if you do, you're a bit oversensitive. There isn't just that much orthodoxy in the Quebec Church and anyone who is open and honest will recognize that.
This reminds me of the time Free Dominion got called "The Shadowy Group" in an interview. As if they had some kind of nebulous hidden agenda. We all had a good laugh over that one.
The agenda of those who fight Development and Peace's contribution to pro-abortion groups is out there on the internet for the whole world to see. I have 5000 posts on this blog. If you want to know what I'm all about: read it. Same thing with LifeSiteNews.com or SoCon or Bust, or any number of blogs.
We will continue to struggle to ensure that these mysterious and questionable interest groups are not able to impede Development and Peace and the pursuit of its indispensable role of furthering solidarity with the people of the South.
I Laughed Out Loud when I read "mysterious and questionable groups".
You can tell these people are from Quebec. They live in their own bubble of Catholic dissent in French Quebec, never venturing into the world of people who actually follow Church teaching. I apologize to any faithful Quebec Catholic who may feel offended-- although if you do, you're a bit oversensitive. There isn't just that much orthodoxy in the Quebec Church and anyone who is open and honest will recognize that.
This reminds me of the time Free Dominion got called "The Shadowy Group" in an interview. As if they had some kind of nebulous hidden agenda. We all had a good laugh over that one.
The agenda of those who fight Development and Peace's contribution to pro-abortion groups is out there on the internet for the whole world to see. I have 5000 posts on this blog. If you want to know what I'm all about: read it. Same thing with LifeSiteNews.com or SoCon or Bust, or any number of blogs.
Toronto: may consider selling naming rights for public spaces
I am sick of public spaces turning into one large advertisement.
Should taxpaid public spaces be part of a company's marketing plan? I say no.
You can just see the corporate takeover coming: of public parks, bike paths, nature trails and hey-- why not-- street names.
A government's function is not to serve as part of a company's marketing strategy. I'm for profit. I'm not for government using its powers to help companies make profits.Once you start selling these things to the highest bidder, governments will be subject to them. They won't be able to close Pepsi Road to work on the water main because Pepsi will lose marketing exposure for which they paid millions.
Should taxpaid public spaces be part of a company's marketing plan? I say no.
You can just see the corporate takeover coming: of public parks, bike paths, nature trails and hey-- why not-- street names.
A government's function is not to serve as part of a company's marketing strategy. I'm for profit. I'm not for government using its powers to help companies make profits.Once you start selling these things to the highest bidder, governments will be subject to them. They won't be able to close Pepsi Road to work on the water main because Pepsi will lose marketing exposure for which they paid millions.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Development and Peace Scandal: Fr. Arriaga Answers the Charges
In a letter to the Chancellor to the Archdiocese of Ottawa sent last April.
No dice, Fr. Arriaga. You lent your organization's name to a document that sought to violate the rights of unborn children. Imagine if you had been a pro-life group lending your name to a document that sought to violate the rights of another group. It would be unconscienable.
And in associating yourself to them in their quest to fight against the rights of unborn children, you make your organization a tool of their attempt to legalize child-killing.
Ooooooooh, so that makes it okay. Do you think we're stupid or something? Do you understand that when you sign a document, you are signing on to its contents. You can't sign a document and then say "well, we really didn't mean it." You mean you would sign a document that calls for legalized child-killing, thinking that people wouldn't believe that you support that? Really?
You didn't think, in your mind, that it was true, but it was never said in the document that you disagreed, and you just imagined that people would psychically understand that you didn't agree with that part. Come on!
So you actually admit to participating to a forum organized by people who seek to legalize child-killing? Did it never occur to you that you, as a priest, might be lending credibility to their cause by showing up? Of course not.
You're in a room full of people who support violating the rights of the unborn, but you said nothing about abortion. Yeah, that makes it all better. Not.
You think you're actually HELPING your cause with this letter. You're not. You're just reinforcing the idea that you simply do not care about the rights of the unborn, and you're willing to build your human rights ministry at their expense which is completely unacceptable. Notably absent in the letter is a profession to believe in the rights of unborn children to be legally protected. You simply assert a vague idea about "believing the church's position on abortion". Since leftists often misconstrue the Church's position on abortion, we don't actually know what that means. We don't really know what you think about abortion.
Listen Development and Peace: the only thing that's going to make it all better is that you sign to the idea that you cannot advance the rights of born people at expense of the rights of the unborn. You can't give money to pro-abortion groups, willfully ignorant of the idea that they're using your money and your credibility to advance their abortion agenda.
Until you start understanding this, this scandal will not go away.
In the article you mention in your letter, Center Prodh is falsely and without foundation accused of having supported Mexican legislation related to abortion. Allow me to clarify this issue.
Without losing their respective identities, non-governmental organizations come together in open and heterogeneous spaces with groups with different interests and perspectives, in order to combine their forces in certain specific processes. In these circles, Center Prodh participates as an equal in making decisions, and maintains its autonomy and independence.
No dice, Fr. Arriaga. You lent your organization's name to a document that sought to violate the rights of unborn children. Imagine if you had been a pro-life group lending your name to a document that sought to violate the rights of another group. It would be unconscienable.
As a prestigious human rights organization, Center Prodh maintains a close relationship with national organizations such as the Network of All Rights for All, Amnesty International Mexico, Fundar, and at the international level with the International Coalition of Human Rights Organizations, the World Organization Against Torture, and Human Rights Watch, among others. Some of these organizations do not belong to, and are not related to, the work of the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, they are excellent allies in concrete cases which benefit specific individuals.
And in associating yourself to them in their quest to fight against the rights of unborn children, you make your organization a tool of their attempt to legalize child-killing.
In no part of the document is it stated that all of the themes are endorsed by all of the organizations, but rather that in collaboration a general perspective is being provided.
Ooooooooh, so that makes it okay. Do you think we're stupid or something? Do you understand that when you sign a document, you are signing on to its contents. You can't sign a document and then say "well, we really didn't mean it." You mean you would sign a document that calls for legalized child-killing, thinking that people wouldn't believe that you support that? Really?
The paragraphs dedicated to this sensitive topic were contributed by other organizations, as this is not a topic on which Center Prodh works,
You didn't think, in your mind, that it was true, but it was never said in the document that you disagreed, and you just imagined that people would psychically understand that you didn't agree with that part. Come on!
In relation to my participation in a Forum on violence against women organized by Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir I would like to clarify my participation
So you actually admit to participating to a forum organized by people who seek to legalize child-killing? Did it never occur to you that you, as a priest, might be lending credibility to their cause by showing up? Of course not.
In this space many priests were invited to talk about violence against women, tragically a reality which continues to be a systematic practice in Mexico. My exposition was on the violence committed by state agents against women in Mexico; specifically I spoke of the case of San Salvador Atenco, in which Center Prodh is representing the victims. During my intervention I never addressed the subject of abortion.
You're in a room full of people who support violating the rights of the unborn, but you said nothing about abortion. Yeah, that makes it all better. Not.
You think you're actually HELPING your cause with this letter. You're not. You're just reinforcing the idea that you simply do not care about the rights of the unborn, and you're willing to build your human rights ministry at their expense which is completely unacceptable. Notably absent in the letter is a profession to believe in the rights of unborn children to be legally protected. You simply assert a vague idea about "believing the church's position on abortion". Since leftists often misconstrue the Church's position on abortion, we don't actually know what that means. We don't really know what you think about abortion.
Listen Development and Peace: the only thing that's going to make it all better is that you sign to the idea that you cannot advance the rights of born people at expense of the rights of the unborn. You can't give money to pro-abortion groups, willfully ignorant of the idea that they're using your money and your credibility to advance their abortion agenda.
Until you start understanding this, this scandal will not go away.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Ontario's Human Rights System Must Be Abolished
Chris Schafer:
What Ontario’s “human rights” advocates fail to heed is that discrimination ought to be universally available to everyone. It is a natural part of individual behaviour. We discriminate every day in the food we eat, the music we listen to, and the friends we keep. In fact, the right of individuals to make choices, or in other words discriminate, is a fundamental aspect of a free society, tied to such genuine rights as freedom of association and contractual freedom.
...What visible minorities, gays, and other enumerated groups under Ontario’s “human rights” system must come to see is that what they are now doing through the Tribunal is the same thing that was once wrongly done to them. They are using the coercive power of the state for private purposes; to compel people to serve them, to forbid individuals from expressing their opinion, etc. However, if history has taught us one lesson, it is that a government that is powerful enough to outlaw discrimination by individuals is also a government powerful enough to compel discrimination when the public mood of the majority changes. This is why Ontario’s human rights system must be abolished.
Say it loud, say it proud: I'm a homoskeptic!
Dr Peter Saunders:
I like the American spelling better. "Sceptic" resembles the word "septic".
I encourage all of you to declare your homoskeptical tendencies. :)
For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term. I’d like to propose the term “homosceptic” - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as a known word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context. (In the American spelling, homoskeptic, there are only 230 examples.)
The Urban dictionary defines a “homosceptic” as “a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms”.
I’d like to broaden this definition to include “being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement” such as the beliefs that:
Homosexuality is genetically determined
Homosexual orientation is always fixed
Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong
Of course if you accept these “key presuppositions” you may well believe people who don’t to be ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy.
But if you have some doubts about the truth of some or all of these beliefs – and suspect that they might be more “ideology-driven” than “evidence-based” – then perhaps you could argue that you are not “homophobic” but rather “homosceptic”
I like the American spelling better. "Sceptic" resembles the word "septic".
I encourage all of you to declare your homoskeptical tendencies. :)
Saturday, June 11, 2011
A Content Analysis of the Prevalence and Portrayal of Sexual Activity in Adolescent Literature.
An abstract I am posting FYI:
Most research on sexual content in the media has focused on visual images such as those in TV, film, advertisements, and magazines. However, researchers have largely overlooked sexual content in novels. The popularity of novels and the potential for such literature to educate teens on sexual behaviors merits a closer examination into the sexual messages contained in popular adolescent literature. This study content analyzes the top 40 novels targeting adolescents. Results show that adolescent novels are replete with sex-related information, especially in novels targeted to girls. These sexual behaviors range from passionate kissing and romantic ideation to sexual intercourse. Over one third of the instances focus on references to sex, suggestive innuendos, or sexual descriptions; and an additional one third of sexual behavior involved sexual affection in the form of passionate kissing, intimate touching, and playful sexual behavior. Across the 40 books, there were 56 instances of sexual intercourse, most of which involved unmarried couples (94%); and many were in non-committal relationships. Moreover, sexual material rarely dealt with issues of abstinence, safe sex practices, and the health risks associated with sex.
Fr. Raymond de Souza hits it out of the park on the Development and Peace scandal
I love you Fr. de Souza!
I want our local Church to help the poor in underdeveloped countries.
But only in accordance to Catholic doctrine.
D + P clearly does not understand Catholic doctrine.
That they freak out when Catholic doctrine is applied shows they do not understand.
The thing is, the bishops have a duty to explain.
Which they're not doing.
They have to make it clear to Development and Peace what the problem is and what the truth is.
Have we completely lost sight sight of the bishop's number one job: preaching and expounding on the truth?
They shouldn't just "propose" as many bishops like to say. Their job is to TELL the truth. Not just offer it as one option, but to say-- authoritatively-- THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS.
Could the bishops, please, please, please, perform this simple but vital function. Please? Why should the laypeople have to practically beg them to do their jobs?
My view is that D + P has a tenuous claim on Catholic dollars because, aside from fundraising in Catholic parishes, they have a tenuous relationship with any distinctively Catholic mission. In their operations they are largely — and by their own proud design — indistinguishable from any number of peace and justice NGOs working in the developing world.
...
Even more troubling, when questions about the Centro PRODH were publicly raised two years ago, the Canadian bishops sent a delegation of two bishops to Mexico to investigate the matter. The bishops’ visit was co-ordinated by D+ P itself — a rather dubious investigative strategy — and D+P officials drafted the report, which cleared the Centre. A rather obvious question now needs to be asked: Did D+P, or the investigating Canadian bishops, never ask Cardinal Rivera what his views were of Canadian Catholics supporting Centro PRODH in his diocese?
Imagine for a moment if the situation was reversed. A Catholic development agency from say, Germany or the United States, decides to fund in Vancouver or Toronto a group that collaborates with pro-abortion groups here. This goes on for 10 years, and when questions are raised about this, the archbishop of Vancouver or Toronto’s opinion is not sought out as the first step. Being rich does not give one the right to ignore the reality of the local Church. Just because D+P has money from generous Canadian Catholics does not give them the right to undermine the public witness of local Catholics, beginning with the archbishop of Mexico City.
Any organization that thinks, much less operates, that way has a deeply flawed understanding of Catholic solidarity. Our duty towards those in poorer countries is not to undermine their social fabric with the corrupt morals of Canadian public policy, but to assist them in genuine human development according to Gospel values. If D+P gets that wrong, then of course it does not deserve Catholic support.
...
The delegates made it clear that they want Canadian bishops to give them access to parish collections, and then shut up. There is a certain consistent logic at play here; D+P is no more interested in the views of the bishops in Canada where they raise money than they are of the bishops in the countries where they spend it. That approach may earn them the support of social activists here and abroad, but it should not earn the support of Catholics.
I want our local Church to help the poor in underdeveloped countries.
But only in accordance to Catholic doctrine.
D + P clearly does not understand Catholic doctrine.
That they freak out when Catholic doctrine is applied shows they do not understand.
The thing is, the bishops have a duty to explain.
Which they're not doing.
They have to make it clear to Development and Peace what the problem is and what the truth is.
Have we completely lost sight sight of the bishop's number one job: preaching and expounding on the truth?
They shouldn't just "propose" as many bishops like to say. Their job is to TELL the truth. Not just offer it as one option, but to say-- authoritatively-- THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS.
Could the bishops, please, please, please, perform this simple but vital function. Please? Why should the laypeople have to practically beg them to do their jobs?
Friday, June 10, 2011
'I was raped and left pregnant at 16... but I still love my baby'
Every time I look at Phoebe, I know I made the right decision. I never wanted to end my baby's life just because of how she came to be.'
To most women, the thought of carrying their rapist's baby would be unthinkable. Elizabeth says that she, too, would once have shared that view.
To her amazement, though, the first sight of that 'mass of cells' on the screen triggered waves of tenderness rather than revulsion.
'It was surprisingly easy to love her as she grew inside me, but I have to admit I was scared my feelings would change when I saw her. 'During the pregnancy, I had nightmares about the attack and I worried myself sick that seeing my baby would immediately bring on flashbacks of that night.
'But from the moment mum put her on my breast, there was no question we belonged together.
'She did not remind me of that night, and I knew then that having her was more important than what had happened.'
I think this woman is very brave for coming forward, because I can just see the blowback, especially from people involved in abortion.
It was at this point that the story took the most astonishing turn. Elizabeth says she had always held very strong views on abortion - believing it wrong, whatever the circumstances. And she couldn't shake off that feeling, not even while lying on the examining couch in the abortion clinic.
I like that little detail because pro-aborts always think that pro-life women change their tune when they are the victims of trying circumstances.
A longitudinal investigation of heavy drinking and physical dating violence in men and women.
Just an interesting abstract. Posted FYI:
Examinations of heavy drinking and dating violence have typically focused on either female victimization or male perpetration; yet recent findings indicate that mutual aggression is the most common pattern of dating violence. The current study investigated the relation between heavy drinking and dating violence for both men and women. Participants (N=2247) completed surveys that assessed their heavy drinking and dating violence frequency across the first three years of college. Findings indicated that heavy drinking and dating violence were both relatively stable across time for men and women, but the relation between heavy drinking and dating violence differed by gender. For men, heavy drinking and dating violence were concurrently associated during their freshman year (Year 1), whereas for women heavy drinking during their sophomore year (Year 2) predicted dating violence in their junior year (Year 3). In addition to providing educational material on healthy relationships and conflict resolution techniques, intervention efforts should target both heavy drinking and dating violence for men during or prior to their freshman year of college, whereas women may primarily benefit from efforts to reduce their heavy drinking.
Sex partying among gay men in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia.
From an abstract:
But this says strictly nothing about the nature of homosexuality. Nope. Nothing whatsoever.
Group sex is relatively common among gay men, and is a likely risk factor for infection with HIV and other sexually transmissible infections (STI). The 5,432 participants in the 2008 Gay Community Periodic Survey in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia, were asked about their participation in group sex. Nearly half (44.0%) of those who reported sex with casual male partners in the previous 6 months also reported engaging in group sex. Among other factors, using drugs odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) (OR = 1.89, CI = 1.61-2.21), being HIV-positive (OR = 1.62, CI = 1.13-2.32), and engaging in anal intercourse, both with a condom (OR = 3.03, CI = 2.46-3.73) and without a condom (OR = 5.68, CI = 4.53-7.12) were independently associated with having engaged in group sex. This study suggests that gay men who engage in group sex represent an important priority for targeted HIV and STI prevention activities and research.
But this says strictly nothing about the nature of homosexuality. Nope. Nothing whatsoever.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Development and Peace Member asks: Why?
They keep asking themselves the same questions over and over.
Look, if you want the answers, read LifeSiteNews.
Fr. Luis Arriaga is congratulating a woman whose battle is to legalize the killing of prenatal persons.
Would you be scandalized if Fr. Arriaga congratulated activists who want to legalize the killing of born persons? Of course you would. But somehow when it involves the unborn, that's okay.
I wish someone in Development and Peace would actually speaks to the allegations and the evidence.
They never do. The unborn always seem to be excluded when the leftists talk about "the marginalized and excluded". Development and Peace seems to marginalize the unborn.
Look, if you want the answers, read LifeSiteNews.
MEXICO CITY, March 31, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An organization funded by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) pulled a page from its website yesterday in which its leader, Fr. Luis Arriaga Valenzuela, congratulates the director of the pro-abortion organization “Catholics for the Right to Decide” for her “outstanding career.”I want all you Development & Peace supporters to understand this.
Fr. Luis Arriaga is congratulating a woman whose battle is to legalize the killing of prenatal persons.
Would you be scandalized if Fr. Arriaga congratulated activists who want to legalize the killing of born persons? Of course you would. But somehow when it involves the unborn, that's okay.
Arriaga, who is currently on a speaking tour in Canada to encourage Catholics to donate to D& P, made the comments at the event while receiving an award at the same time as Consuelo MejÃa, director of Catholics for the Right to Decide, and another pro-abortion activist, Marisa Belausteguigoitia of the University Program for Gender Studies (PUEG). A photo on the page showed Arriaga smiling and standing next to the two as they all hold their awards.
The page was eliminated following an LSN exposé published Tuesday night documenting the pro-abortion activities of Arriaga’s organization, the “Miguel AgustÃn Pro Juárez Center for Human Rights,” (PRODH) and discussing his connections to Catholics for the Right to Decide, a group Arriaga has repeatedly supported in his statements and actions.
Although the page is no longer available on the website, LSN had already captured it in a PDF. It can be also be found here.
I wish someone in Development and Peace would actually speaks to the allegations and the evidence.
They never do. The unborn always seem to be excluded when the leftists talk about "the marginalized and excluded". Development and Peace seems to marginalize the unborn.
UK: Ban homophobic clerics from mosques, gay rights campaigners urge
Dateline: London
Gay rights campaigners want Muslims to stop promoting homophobia.
But but but...what right do we have to judge their culture?
I find it laughable if they think that this will stop Islamic clerics from preaching. If Islamic clerics can threaten to kill people who insult their prophet, with impunity, why would gay rights campaigners be any more successful in getting them to shut up.
Good luck, folks.
Gay rights campaigners want Muslims to stop promoting homophobia.
But but but...what right do we have to judge their culture?
I find it laughable if they think that this will stop Islamic clerics from preaching. If Islamic clerics can threaten to kill people who insult their prophet, with impunity, why would gay rights campaigners be any more successful in getting them to shut up.
Good luck, folks.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Concurrent partnerships and HIV: an inconvenient truth
We have to warn people of the dangers of promiscuity ("concurrent partnerships")? Really?
As Kathy Shaidle wonders: what would we ever do without studies?
Maybe act on what is already common sense knowledge.
As Kathy Shaidle wonders: what would we ever do without studies?
Maybe act on what is already common sense knowledge.
Mother of baby who died in foster care goes public on Internet but may face jail
Child Protection is a totalitarian racket.
My beef with this whole story is how nobody is named "to protect the children".
Newsflash: the baby is already dead!
Who were the people responsible? What is the name of this mother? What motivated the Child Protection authorities to take her baby away (aside from the vague charges of alcoholism and mental illness).
Question: why should mental illness, of itself, be a motive for taking away a kid in custody? Is a kid really better off in foster care than with his mother (even a depressed one)?
Nobody is named: not the mother, not the foster parents, not the social workers, not the bureaucrats in charge. Nobody. A baby is dead and nobody is there to answer to the public. And our tax dollars went to pay for this.
I'm surprised more feminists don't get involved in these issues. If there is one body that genuinely oppresses mothers, it's child protection.
H/T: Free Dominion
My beef with this whole story is how nobody is named "to protect the children".
Newsflash: the baby is already dead!
Who were the people responsible? What is the name of this mother? What motivated the Child Protection authorities to take her baby away (aside from the vague charges of alcoholism and mental illness).
Question: why should mental illness, of itself, be a motive for taking away a kid in custody? Is a kid really better off in foster care than with his mother (even a depressed one)?
Nobody is named: not the mother, not the foster parents, not the social workers, not the bureaucrats in charge. Nobody. A baby is dead and nobody is there to answer to the public. And our tax dollars went to pay for this.
I'm surprised more feminists don't get involved in these issues. If there is one body that genuinely oppresses mothers, it's child protection.
H/T: Free Dominion
Why did you vote Tory, again?
Lorne Gunter:
If they're only going to rule like Liberals, we might as well stop voting for them. It will hurt in the short term, but in the long term, these elites must get the message that they cannot screw over their base.
You do have another choice on Election Day: just hand in a blank ballot. Don't reward politicians who screw you over. Have a little self-respect.
The 2011-12 budget, reintroduced Monday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, is clearly an elegant palace constructed on sand. There is almost no chance Ottawa will reach its optimistic projection of balancing the budget by 2014-15 unless the new Tory majority government gets much more serious about cutting spending than it demonstrated Monday.
If they're only going to rule like Liberals, we might as well stop voting for them. It will hurt in the short term, but in the long term, these elites must get the message that they cannot screw over their base.
You do have another choice on Election Day: just hand in a blank ballot. Don't reward politicians who screw you over. Have a little self-respect.
Men arrested for feeding the homeless
Members of Food Not Bombs were arrested for organizing a mass feeding of homeless people in a public park in Orlando, Florida.
Not cool. I realize that homeless people often bring a lot of social dysfunction with them. No, I would not like homeless people amassing down the street at my local park either. But they have rights too, and I'd rather some anarchist group look after them than some bureaucracy.
I'd like to see this challenged in court.
Not cool. I realize that homeless people often bring a lot of social dysfunction with them. No, I would not like homeless people amassing down the street at my local park either. But they have rights too, and I'd rather some anarchist group look after them than some bureaucracy.
I'd like to see this challenged in court.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Abortion gangster come out of the closet: I am pro-abortion
Kaitlyn at The Abortion Gang just hates leftists who claim to be pro-choice but anti-abortion.
That's it Kaitlyn. Trivialize the taking of human life. Overlook those nagging bioethical issues. What are issues of principle? They're just social inventions too, right?
It's another episode of: if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of female empowerment: tough luck fetus!
Will this mean that poor-choicers will finally end their objection to being called pro-aborts? Only time will tell.
I am pro-heart transplant, pro-appendix removal, and pro-abortion, whenever one of those is medically necessary. Now the argument will be, it trivializes abortion to say it’s as easy as appendix removal! But it doesn’t trivialize it. The medical reality is that an abortion in the first eight weeks is easier than getting an appendix removed, and the recovery time is much shorter.
That's it Kaitlyn. Trivialize the taking of human life. Overlook those nagging bioethical issues. What are issues of principle? They're just social inventions too, right?
It's another episode of: if a fetus has to suffer and die in the name of female empowerment: tough luck fetus!
Will this mean that poor-choicers will finally end their objection to being called pro-aborts? Only time will tell.
Linda Gibbons speaks truth
TORONTO, Ontario, June 7, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After being released from prison on Friday, pro-life advocate Linda Gibbons is preparing yet again to challenge the injunction that has landed her in jail for nine of the last 17 years. But this time, she’s calling on other pro-lifers to join her campaign.
“I really feel if we’re going to turn this around, there has to be some kind of a mobilization,” said Gibbons, who spoke with LifeSiteNews from her temporary quarters in Toronto on Monday.
Pro-lifers, you have to ask yourselves: how badly do you want to win the fight for the unborn?
We all have jobs, we all have kids and mortgages. I get it.
But if we all abdicate from witnessing, then nothing will get done and the children will continue to die. We can't all say no.
I'm not saying that sidewalk counselling is the magic solution.
There are no simple answers. We need it all: sidewalk counselling, political activism, education, helping the pregnant women, etc. Nobody should question why one person is doing one thing and not another. It's all important.
But I see one lonely grandma taking all the garbage for counselling at this clinic. How is it that there aren't more pro-lifers taking up the cause?
Recently, Fr. Ted Colleton died. He was a guy ready to suffer anything for the sake of unborn children. He was a rare gem. I don't think we have enough of these kinds of activists in Canada. You hear of a Mary Wagner here, a Ruth Lobo there.
Do you really think we're going to win with the odd act of defiance? You think that's how civil rights legislation was won?
Yes, I'm as guilty as all of you reading this.
But how do you expect the pro-life movement to win without people challenging injustice and paying for it?
I remember Jim Hughes telling a Campaign Life meeting that there was a time when he thought the abortion issue could be turned around easily by voting in the right people and voting in pro-life legislation. I think maybe the pro-life movement had absorbed that belief. It's only natural. Who wants to think of their cause as being one for the long haul?
But now that we know that it's for the long haul, we have to realize it's not going to be just about voting in the right MP's (important as that is!) and just getting the right laws. There are structures of sin that need to be challenged, and the challengers will pay. There's no doubt about it. We can't think that we're just going to win this war by sitting at home writing emails to our MP's. We have to go out there in the streets and confront the evil itself. How do we confront the evil? Not just by denunciation, but by mercy as well-- bringing truth and assistance to the people who need it.
If Linda Gibbons remains the only one confronting the evil, I guarantee we will not win the pro-life cause any time soon.
The more we want to win, the more we are ready to suffer for it, the smarter we are in our strategy, the sooner we will win the fight for unborn children. If we don't have heart or guts, that victory is a long while away. Is that what you really want? To win this fight in a hundred years instead of ten? I wanted it won yesterday.
Perhaps the solution is that we need a ministry or a lay apostolate of single people dedicated to suffering for the pro-life cause: people willing to do whatever it takes to bring the pro-life message to clinics, and of course the support network for that cause: lawyers, donors, prayer warriors, messengers and so forth.
Imagine all the women we could help, all the babies we could save if such a group existed.
VIDEO: French pro-life song from France
For many weeks now, I've been reading about this song on Twitter. French (from France) youth who have nothing to say about abortion quote this song. I've seen it quoted dozens if not hundreds of times. I thought I'd put it out there for you, for my bilingual readers. The lyrics are printed, making it easier to understand.
It's gotten 13 million hits and it hasn't been out for very long. I think it's a hit.
It's gotten 13 million hits and it hasn't been out for very long. I think it's a hit.
Would you trust men with a birth control pill
Seeing as they're not the ones who get pregnant?
Yes, I realize that men are liable for their children, but lots of men manage to get out of taking care of their kids.
This does not bode well.
Yes, I realize that men are liable for their children, but lots of men manage to get out of taking care of their kids.
This does not bode well.
Monday, June 06, 2011
I so love Cardinal Pell
And this is why:
Did you notice how he spoke directly in plain English, and didn't skirt the issue?
The politicalese of the bishops is one of my pet peeves. A bishop should tell it like it is. He's not a politician, he's a shepherd of souls and his speech should reflect that.
We need him as pope. I really think we do.
What is your view of those avowedly Catholic politicians who adopt public stances in clear opposition to Church teaching on key moral issues like abortion or same-sex marriage?
Cardinal Pell: Some politicians like to dine at the Catholic cafeteria—picking and choosing Church teachings that suit their political views while claiming to be defenders of the faith. While they fly under the Christian or “Captain Catholic” flag, they blithely disregard Christian perspectives when they vote in Parliament on moral issues.
If a person says, “Look, I’m not a Christian, I’ve a different set of perspectives,” I disagree but I understand. If a person says to me, “Look, I’m nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,” I understand that.
But it’s incongruous for people to be Captain Catholics one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then to turn around an regularly vote against the established Christian traditions.
In England, if you’re anti-Catholic—say, writing for The Guardian or The Independent—you wear that anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity as a badge of honor. Here in Australia, politicians who regularly espouse anti-Christian positions—whether on euthanasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, or funding for religious schools—won’t concede that they’re anti-Christian.
Catholic politicians can’t have it both ways on sensitive moral issues.
Did you notice how he spoke directly in plain English, and didn't skirt the issue?
The politicalese of the bishops is one of my pet peeves. A bishop should tell it like it is. He's not a politician, he's a shepherd of souls and his speech should reflect that.
We need him as pope. I really think we do.
Highlights of the Continuing D & P Scandal
SoCon or Bust has details.
I think one of the ideas that we should be pushing (among others) is that orthodoxy is not extremist and should not be extremist in our Church.
That dissidents and bishops feel free to treat orthodoxy is a scandal in itself.
They think that they're being orthodox by advancing a socialist agenda.
Although I think that issues like the degree of government intervention are debatable in the Catholic faith, some political issues are not. For instance, the idea that the ONLY way to serve the poor is through statism.
This scandal is not only about abortion, although it is very central. It's philosophical. I just wish, for once, we'd have the damned debate, out in the open, with everyone saying exactly what we think so that hopefully bishops and maybe even the Vatican can come out and say what's what.
I'm confident whose side would win.
I'm confident that the socialists in the Church would be confounded and marginalized in the end.
But maybe that's why this debate is not happening. They do not have the courage of their convictions. On some level, the bishops and professional Catholic class must know that there is a risk of schism, if only de facto, if the debate goes ahead. And goodness knows, liberal Catholics don't want to risk losing the Catholic brand by breaking with the pope. No pope, no Catholicism.
Of course, this is a hypocritical stance.
Which is why this scandal annoys me to no end. A lot of it is just PR and posing. Let's get their take on Magisterial Catholicism. Let's see what the decisional bodies in our church have to say about their stances. Let's just have it out.
I think one of the ideas that we should be pushing (among others) is that orthodoxy is not extremist and should not be extremist in our Church.
That dissidents and bishops feel free to treat orthodoxy is a scandal in itself.
They think that they're being orthodox by advancing a socialist agenda.
Although I think that issues like the degree of government intervention are debatable in the Catholic faith, some political issues are not. For instance, the idea that the ONLY way to serve the poor is through statism.
This scandal is not only about abortion, although it is very central. It's philosophical. I just wish, for once, we'd have the damned debate, out in the open, with everyone saying exactly what we think so that hopefully bishops and maybe even the Vatican can come out and say what's what.
I'm confident whose side would win.
I'm confident that the socialists in the Church would be confounded and marginalized in the end.
But maybe that's why this debate is not happening. They do not have the courage of their convictions. On some level, the bishops and professional Catholic class must know that there is a risk of schism, if only de facto, if the debate goes ahead. And goodness knows, liberal Catholics don't want to risk losing the Catholic brand by breaking with the pope. No pope, no Catholicism.
Of course, this is a hypocritical stance.
Which is why this scandal annoys me to no end. A lot of it is just PR and posing. Let's get their take on Magisterial Catholicism. Let's see what the decisional bodies in our church have to say about their stances. Let's just have it out.
Advice to Tories
Gerry Nicholls:
If we want the Conservatives to advance a conservative agenda, then we must keep their feet to the fire.
We have to stop thinking purely in terms of stopping the next left-wing government from being elected.
That is a loser attitude.
If we elect a right-wing government that placates left-wing voters (who won't vote for them anyway) we screw ourselves.
The point of pushing for a conservative party is not to stop the Liberals.
The point is to implement conservative policies.
And if we don't demand conservative policies and if we keep rewarding Conservatives with our votes and our money, we will never get it. And our effort and donations will be all for naught.
I get the feeling that some Tories are so happy to be in power that they don't want to jeopardize their position.
Tories who fear losing elections more than not implementing right-wing policies are sell-outs. They're Red Tories pure and simple and they have to be booted out.
Do not be content with simply being elected. DEMAND that right-wing policies be applied. And if they don't then the Conservatives should lose.
I realize that in the short term it will mean more left-wing damage, as this may allow a left-wing party to be elected.
However, this is all necessary in order to make Conservative elites understand that they cannot take our votes for granted. They must follow through with the right-wing agenda. And if they don't, they won't get elected. That's the only thing they must understand. And if they don't understand it, there's no point in being an activist for the Right.
Of course, to be fair to the Prime Minister, his majority government is just getting started and it's possible he may yet provide principled, conservative leadership.
But then again, a temptation always exists for a political leader to betray his most loyal supporters, because they have "no place else to go."
That's why it's important for rank and file conservatives to let the Prime Minister know they won't tolerate being taken for granted. If you're upset with the direction the government is taking, it's easy to make your displeasure known: Don't send the Conservative party your usual financial con-tribution. And let the party know why you're not sending in a cheque. After all, if conservatives don't act to keep the party in line, nobody will.
That would be bad for Canada's conservative movement, bad for the Conservative party, but most of all it would be bad for our country.
If we want the Conservatives to advance a conservative agenda, then we must keep their feet to the fire.
We have to stop thinking purely in terms of stopping the next left-wing government from being elected.
That is a loser attitude.
If we elect a right-wing government that placates left-wing voters (who won't vote for them anyway) we screw ourselves.
The point of pushing for a conservative party is not to stop the Liberals.
The point is to implement conservative policies.
And if we don't demand conservative policies and if we keep rewarding Conservatives with our votes and our money, we will never get it. And our effort and donations will be all for naught.
I get the feeling that some Tories are so happy to be in power that they don't want to jeopardize their position.
Tories who fear losing elections more than not implementing right-wing policies are sell-outs. They're Red Tories pure and simple and they have to be booted out.
Do not be content with simply being elected. DEMAND that right-wing policies be applied. And if they don't then the Conservatives should lose.
I realize that in the short term it will mean more left-wing damage, as this may allow a left-wing party to be elected.
However, this is all necessary in order to make Conservative elites understand that they cannot take our votes for granted. They must follow through with the right-wing agenda. And if they don't, they won't get elected. That's the only thing they must understand. And if they don't understand it, there's no point in being an activist for the Right.
"Kill Pill" openly sold in India without a prescription
Legalizing abortion just makes it safer, right?
Yes, back-alley butchers now replaced by callous chemists who look the other way. Way to go, abortion advocates!
Narrating her harrowing experience, Sandhya Sharma (name changed), who preferred to buy abortion pills from a chemist instead of seeking a doctor's advise, said, "I got pregnant in my second year of college. As I was apprehensive about visiting a doctor, I opted for the 'easier' option and bought an abortion pill kit from a chemist. After taking the pills, I started bleeding profusely and had to be rushed to a hospital."
Yes, back-alley butchers now replaced by callous chemists who look the other way. Way to go, abortion advocates!
Sunday, June 05, 2011
This makes it all worth it
People wonder why we pray and witness outside abortion clinics.
This is it.
Baby saved. I don't care what they say about us. I don't care what laws they throw at it. This baby is alive because we were there.
Thanks be to God.
This is it.
Baby saved. I don't care what they say about us. I don't care what laws they throw at it. This baby is alive because we were there.
Thanks be to God.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Study Abstract on Women's Emotional Difficulty After Abortion
Just interesting, that's all:
You don't say? Maybe because the pro-abortion movement has been in denial for decades about this issue. But whatever!
I'm glad they're paying attention to this issue, but 21 people is a very small sample.
Or maybe just not having one in the first place might do the trick.
CONTEXT: The experiences of women who have negative emotional outcomes, including regret, following an abortion have received little research attention.
You don't say? Maybe because the pro-abortion movement has been in denial for decades about this issue. But whatever!
METHODS: Twenty-one women who had emotional difficulties related to an abortion participated in semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews in 2009. Of these, 14 women were recruited from abortion support talklines; seven were recruited from a separate research project on women’s experience of abortion. Transcripts were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory to identify key themes.
I'm glad they're paying attention to this issue, but 21 people is a very small sample.
RESULTS: Two social aspects of the abortion experience produced, exacerbated or mitigated respondents’ negative emotional experience. Negative outcomes were experienced when the woman did not feel that the abortion was primarily her decision (e.g., because her partner abdicated responsibility for the pregnancy, leaving her feeling as though she had no other choice) or did not feel that she had clear emotional support after the abortion. Evidence also points to a division of labor between women and men regarding pregnancy prevention, abortion and childrearing; as a result, the majority of abortion-related emotional burdens fall on women. Experiencing decisional autonomy or social support reduced respondents’ emotional distress.
CONCLUSIONS: Supporting a woman’s abortion decision-making process, addressing the division of labor between women and men regarding pregnancy prevention, abortion and childrearing, and offering nonjudgmental support may guide interventions designed to reduce emotional distress after abortion.
Or maybe just not having one in the first place might do the trick.
Study: Men who have sex with men and HIV Testing
Posting this study abstract FYI. Formatted for easier reading.
I've noticed something about HIV literature. Researchers do not typically study heterosexual couples in long-term relationships and their risk for HIV. I suspect that's because such relationships do not present a high risk. Just sayin'.
But the fact that men who have sex with men are overwhelmingly overpresented in AIDS statistics says nothing about the nature of homosexuality. Nope. Nada. Not a single thing. Resist the urge to make inferences. Could be a thought crime.
Although men who have sex with men (MSM) comprise an estimated 2% of the overall U.S. population aged ≥13 years (1), 59% of persons with diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States in 2009 were MSM, including MSM who inject drugs (2).
CDC recommends HIV testing at least annually for sexually active MSM to identify HIV infections and prevent ongoing transmission (3).
Results of HIV testing conducted as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) in 21 cities indicated that 19% of MSM who were tested in 2008 were HIV-positive; of these, 44% were unaware that they were infected (4).
To assess whether MSM were tested as recommended and whether more frequent testing might be indicated, CDC analyzed NHBS data for 2008. This report describes the results of that analysis, which indicated that, of 7,271 MSM interviewed and tested who did not report a previous positive HIV test, 61% had been tested for HIV infection during the past 12 months; among these, 7% had a new, positive HIV test result when tested as part of NHBS.
Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing (e.g., every 3 to 6 months).
I've noticed something about HIV literature. Researchers do not typically study heterosexual couples in long-term relationships and their risk for HIV. I suspect that's because such relationships do not present a high risk. Just sayin'.
But the fact that men who have sex with men are overwhelmingly overpresented in AIDS statistics says nothing about the nature of homosexuality. Nope. Nada. Not a single thing. Resist the urge to make inferences. Could be a thought crime.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Note to Canadian Catholic Bishops Regarding Development and Peace
As I reported yesterday, a Quebec Labour Union-- the CSN of Metropolitan Montreal-- has come out in defense of Development and Peace.
The union says that Development and Peace has been attacked by "anti-choice" groups.
Well, shouldn't Development and Peace be considered "anti-choice"?
How is it that a union that opposes human rights for unborn children feels comfortable in defending Development and Peace?
It sounds like Development and Peace is not committed to the rights of unborn children.
How is this compatible with Catholic teaching?
Canadian bishops: you are known by the company you keep. If you want Development and Peace, your baby, to be known as a Catholic organization, then it should act like one. It should be standing up for the unborn explicitly.
And if it's not, then it makes us wonder how serious the bishops are in upholding the right to life.
The union says that Development and Peace has been attacked by "anti-choice" groups.
Well, shouldn't Development and Peace be considered "anti-choice"?
How is it that a union that opposes human rights for unborn children feels comfortable in defending Development and Peace?
It sounds like Development and Peace is not committed to the rights of unborn children.
How is this compatible with Catholic teaching?
Canadian bishops: you are known by the company you keep. If you want Development and Peace, your baby, to be known as a Catholic organization, then it should act like one. It should be standing up for the unborn explicitly.
And if it's not, then it makes us wonder how serious the bishops are in upholding the right to life.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Why do Latino gay men engage in risky sex? Homophobia and Racism!
But this study is not politically driven what-so-ever!
So how does homophobia and racism make them have unprotected sex or engage in binge drinking?
How about they're just being more irresponsible than average?
But if that were the case, then they wouldn't be able to justify "more intervention research to address both homophobia and racism".
Adjusting for potential confounders, men exposed to both homophobia and racism were more likely than men exposed to neither form of discrimination to report unprotected receptive anal intercourse with a casual sex partner (AOR = 1.92, 95% CI, 1.18-3.24) and binge drinking (AOR = 1.42, 95% CI, 1.02-1.98). Our findings suggest the presence of a syndemic of adverse social experiences and call for more intervention research to address both homophobia and racism experienced among Latino MSM in the United States.
So how does homophobia and racism make them have unprotected sex or engage in binge drinking?
How about they're just being more irresponsible than average?
But if that were the case, then they wouldn't be able to justify "more intervention research to address both homophobia and racism".
Quebec Labour Union affirms its support for Development and Peace
Quebec supporters of Development and Peace have set up a blog to fight back against the charges that they fund groups that support abortion.
And their blog reports that the Montreal Central Committee of the CSN, a Quebec labour union, has voted to affirm its support of Development and Peace and encourages its members to sign the petition to that end.
Their interest in this is that they want to combat "the extreme right".
As if the internal affairs of the Catholic Church are any of their business.
Was it really a good idea for these D & P supporters to get the approval of a hardcore pro-abort union?
The fact that they thought it was a good idea shows that they do not get it. They do not get it at all.
They think that the dismemberment of unborn children is no big deal. They wouldn't seek the approval of a white supremacist group, or a pro-torture group, or any number of groups that violate human rights.
But getting the approval of a group that supports the violation of the rights of unborn children: no problem!
Yeah, that'll bolster their credibility with faithful Catholics. Not.
Look, either you support fetal rights as human rights, or you don't.You can't treat fetal rights as inferior to that of everyone else's.
And their blog reports that the Montreal Central Committee of the CSN, a Quebec labour union, has voted to affirm its support of Development and Peace and encourages its members to sign the petition to that end.
Their interest in this is that they want to combat "the extreme right".
As if the internal affairs of the Catholic Church are any of their business.
Was it really a good idea for these D & P supporters to get the approval of a hardcore pro-abort union?
The fact that they thought it was a good idea shows that they do not get it. They do not get it at all.
They think that the dismemberment of unborn children is no big deal. They wouldn't seek the approval of a white supremacist group, or a pro-torture group, or any number of groups that violate human rights.
But getting the approval of a group that supports the violation of the rights of unborn children: no problem!
Yeah, that'll bolster their credibility with faithful Catholics. Not.
Look, either you support fetal rights as human rights, or you don't.You can't treat fetal rights as inferior to that of everyone else's.
Study: Marriage increasing in popularity in Sweden
Says study abstract:
I wish there would have been more stats in the abstract. Nevertheless, it seems things may be pointing up.
Usually seen as a forerunner in the development of new trends in family-demographic behaviour, Sweden has recently experienced a reversal in marriage trends, from a steady decline in marriage rate between the 1960s and 1990s, to a steady increase beginning in 1998. An event-history analysis of women's first marriages in the period 1991-2007, using register data, shows that compositional changes in labour-market activity and childbearing can only partly explain the reversal, and that apparently no part of it is explained by compositional changes in age, country of birth, educational level, and type of settlement. The evidence suggests that the popularity of marriage in Sweden is increasing, in contrast to what might be expected from the way demographic trends in Sweden and other Western countries are often portrayed in the literature.
I wish there would have been more stats in the abstract. Nevertheless, it seems things may be pointing up.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, June 1, 2011
I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.
I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.
All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.
Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.
We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.
Read more
The insanity of militant secularists
MONTREAL — A new Quebec government policy prohibiting religious instruction in subsidized daycares contravenes the federal and provincial charters of rights, a group of parents claims in a legal action filed Tuesday.
...
Danielle Sabbah, president of an association of 17 Jewish daycares in Quebec, said the policy is so vague that it will be impossible for daycare workers to know when they’ve crossed the line.
She said the director of a Catholic daycare has been informed by bureaucrats that the popular song Au clair de la lune can be sung as long as the final line — Pour l’amour de Dieu (For the love of God) — is dropped.
But who didn't see this coming?
When you accept government money, you lose your freedom. That's exactly what statists want. Statists do not understand freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)