Just impeach Obama:
The IRS official who led the tax-exempt organizations unit when Tea Party groups were targeted is now in charge of the IRS office responsible for ObamaCare, two Capitol Hill sources tell Fox News.
In other words, if you’re Catholic and don’t pay into Obama’s abortion super-fund via Obamacare, this henchman will cut you down. It’s a promotion for him.
Just impeach Obama. Do it now.
Filed under news, Persecution, politics
Update on the previous blog entry about Rorate Caeli and Dawn Eden: I glanced at the numerous anti-Semitic comments flooding the comments-box on Dawn’s post on her blog and on other posts on other blogs about her post on her blog. Some observations:
I am reminded of a statement of a racist lady in the deep south to me some years ago. She knew I was concerned about a streak of racism in the area. She said: “Oh, Father! We’re not racist here! We treat those blacks just as if they were real people!”
Filed under Catholic, interreligious dialogue, Persecution
Yesterday was a tough day. I was reading and reflecting about some posts I would like to write. My mind just did not want to get wrapped around the enigmas and mysteries. Sometimes you can write about certain things, things that are really very evil — such as this post in the exorcism series on politicians on the sidebar of this blog (a favorite of readers, especially in Asia) — but at other times you are actually faced with a sense of what the wounds of our Crucified Lord manifest about the reality of evil… and also of His mercy, though that can seem distant when we are swamped by a bit more knowledge of how much we are trusting in ourselves instead of Him who is so good and kind. I didn’t finish writing those posts.
Instead, I prayed a bit, and drove down the mountain to see what the UPS Store had by way of packages and letters. Empty. 
So, I went to see the neighbors to catch up on any logistics of whatever. Asked how I was, I said that I felt like a spider that I had killed earlier in the day, a really big spider, juicy… POP! and splatter. Part of Spring cleaning. But it might remind one of Alderaan getting destroyed. So I added, that, obviously, “A disturbance in the Force there is” with appropriate voice. This set people into hysterical laughter. Anyway, that’s how I felt.
It seems to me that the entire world was smacked down, hard, when Pope Benedict abdicated. Well, that’s what it felt like, and to very many people. But “smacked down” is not the gist of it. I would rather describe it in this way:
Today’s ad orientem picture, 7 March 2013
When there is a very great need in the Church, the Lord looks to those who are His own in any way and has them share the burden. Saint Paul speaks of this aspect of the Body of Christ at length. We are to be available, in His grace, for being the living sacrifices of intercession He wants us to be. This can be occasioned by both internal and external circumstances. Our Lord knows how to work on us. Just leave it to Him. Just be faithful. Just be in humble thanksgiving, whatever is going on.
And there is that which lifts the spirit as well. There are chickens eating and a Laudie-dog who is ever so content under the wood stove after just having come in from a hard night of chasing monsters in the forest. What a good dog. Great smile. And cute too.
Of course, there is very much for which to be thankful, especially how our Lord takes care of our spiritual lives no matter what, if we are but willing to cooperate with His grace. I’m thinking about hard spiritual times as well, that many know right around this world, such as in China and Vietnam and North Korea and all Islamicist countries, because of oppression of religious freedom, and such as in Ireland and so many Western countries, because of a willing throwing away of the faith, giving that external oppression full reign. Those who are able to let the faith shine in their parishes really ought to do so, now, for times change very, very quickly.
We read various nefarious things about what some Cardinals have done or failed to do. Does this shake our faith? I should hope not. Is it a disappointment? I should hope so. There are many on the internet who are providing “What if?” scenarios. I have to wonder about that.
For instance, what if a Cardinal is elected to be the Bishop of Rome who is entirely, thoroughly inept theologically, who says all sorts of rubbish at Wednesday audiences and to this and that group, heretical things, just plain stupid things, and who is obviously just full of himself, the old “I’m Pope and you’re not! Neyah neyah neyah neyah neyah!” kind of thing? What would you do then? Throw yourself into free fall, or would you pray and intercede for the Church, even while being mocked by friends who let themselves go to hell, blaming the Pope for bad example, but being judged only on what they did by our Lord?
And, by the way, Popes can be heretical, privately, to groups of people, to countries, though NOT to the entire Church specifically as the Successor of Peter while speaking on faith and morals. And Popes can be real jerks. We’ve had a few. They’re human too. Will you pray for them? Or will you run away and say, “I told you so! I told you so! I’m still a sede-vacantist! Neyah neyah neyah neyah neyah!” Is that any better?
Can things be looking up even when things could be so very bad? Sure. But in that case, we have to look up to Him who is lifted up, up high on the Cross.
IF an excommunicate apostate heretic freakoid is elected to the See of Rome, do you know what happens? In Canon Law, all excommunications and penalties are lifted. He can start fresh. I love that.
Remember Saint Thomas Becket? The moment he was made bishop, he repented of all his knuckleheadedness and became a devout follower of Christ and defender of the Church, so much so that his one time friend, King Henry II, had him martyred.
Those who separate themselves from the Church, using individuals and their ineptitude as an excuse, have no understanding either of their own sins or the power of the grace of God. We all deserve to rot in hell for original sin and our own personal sins. But Jesus is good and kind. So good and so kind.
There is simply no excuse to fall apart, go into free fall, lose the faith. None. Jesus takes care of us even if all priests are taken from us. But we have to be faithful. Doctrine. Morals. All of it. If we do our own thing apart from Christ and His Church, we are lost.
I remember an incident while giving a retreat to priests and brothers of a religious congregation in Albania just a short time after the communist government fell in that poorest of all countries. It was a good hour before Mass on a Sunday, and loud singing was to be heard in the Church. I investigated and was amazed. The Church was packed with young and old. No hymn books. It was one, very long, 40 minute chant they all knew by heart, with nothing repeated. It was the catechism. This is how they kept the faith alive during decades of fiercely murderous religious oppression. There will be many great saints from such conditions.
But what about us? In the USA? Too comfortable? Too self-congratulatory? So many have for so long abandoned the faith that it wouldn’t make any difference to them if the Pope was a saint or was a minion of Satan. It would not matter to them because they do what they want to do anyway. Many of them are the power-brokers in parishes. They have their reward now. They will lead the oppression of religious freedom.
So, what to do? Be faithful, in good times and bad. And, in whatever occasion, let the faith shine for all to see. There is no greater love…
Filed under Catholic, martyrdom, Persecution
I just find it interesting that the article I put up back in November 2012 detailing the complicity of the New York Times in the Holocaust back in the day — and with an attitude that I prove continues to this day — is daily since that time high up or even number one in the blog stats. The first paragraph:
The upshot of this article: Not only was The New York Times run by Holocaust denying Nazi sympathizers during and after World War II, but this is still the case today, with the particularly tragic edge of sarcasm and cynicism known only to those who defend their crimes against humanity. It is not too harsh to speak of sympathy with Hitler when the most powerful mass media instrument of the day downplayed and buried and, indeed, effectively denied that there was anything even like a Final Solution, as Hitler called his genocide. And that denial is, of course, a crime.
You can access the rest of that post on this blog, HERE.
Filed under news, Persecution, politics
I love it when I see the Lion of the Tribe of Judah among the beloved of His sheepfold, having them lay down their lives out of love for the brethren, in this way confirming them in the faith. The grace of our Lord has His shepherds die to themselves so as to live for the Head and members of the Mystical Body of Christ.
For a spectacular article on the status quo of the developing Kristallnacht against all people of good will, see this FoxNews story: HERE.
“It will most likely end up being a sanctuary for holy Priests in time of persecution,” a reader of HSH writes. Yikes! Which brings up the question:
In times of persecution, what are priests to do?
Hide? Be in-your-face?
One priest said that he would like to hide out at Holy Souls Hermitage during a persecution. What he meant, I’m sure, is that he would provide the sacraments to the faithful, but in a hidden way, until he was betrayed. Another said, “I will die with my people.” What he meant, I’m sure, is that he would provide the sacraments to the faithful until he was betrayed until he was betrayed. There’s no use filling up churches publicly just to get everyone killed in one go, you know, for the drama of it all. But is going about providing the sacraments to the faithful at the risk of one’s life, doing this with prudence, even hidden, and without otherwise speaking out, no more than cowardice? Some think so. Let’s investigate this.
What’s the purpose of the priestly vocation? Does it include having that much touted prophetic voice? Perhaps it is helpful to rephrase this question:
When does a priest’s prophetic voice become self-serving?
But they don’t stop there:
You get the idea! Maybe…
Perhaps not yet.
Not you get it, for sure.
I recommend, instead, a voice of reason in all this: Father Gordon MacRae (about). Take a look at this article of his about Hitler’s Pope, Nazi Crimes and the New York Times, along with the incisive comments by the likes of, say, Dorothy Stein.
As it is, I think that any prophetic voice ends up being self-serving when the speaker is doing this for one-up-man-ship, for self-righteous “I’m better than you are” inversion. Sure, speak out while you can and in whatever way you can as long as that does not get people unnecessarily murdered.
Was Benedict XVI right to speak out against Islamicist violence in Regensburg even though later there were retaliatory killings? Sure.
Was it right for Pius XII to do the best he could to save as many as he could even if this didn’t fit the scream at all times categories of later pundits? Absolutely.
But the complicity of the New York Times in the Holocaust is what it is.
Look at the circumstances.
I think that those who strike out at the Lord’s anointed, at Pius XII, and against so many who were martyrs in the midst of their prudence, will regret having done this on the day of judgment.
Our Lord will not be mocked. Our Lord will not be mocked in His martyrs.
Really.
Filed under Catholic, martyrdom, Persecution, priests
Father Gordon MacRae (about) has written an awesome post on the proper Separation of Church and State, whereby the State is not to persecute and control the Church, defining and establishing a state religion which controls every aspect of everyone’s lives, effectively having everyone worship the head of state.
Of course, no one could care less with all the Orwellian brainwashing that goes on, and no amout of punditry and commentary will change anyone.
That’s why Father Gordon, with great pastoral zeal, brings the message home to the Lord’s little flock, citing the Gospel of Matthew, and then closes with some rather incisive encouragement from Father John Harden, S.J.
“In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus cautioned us that we must go out in public as though sheep in the presence of wolves, but He never intended that we should follow the wolves.”
“Unless we recover the zeal and spirit of the first-century Christians – unless we are willing to do what they did, and pay the price they paid – the future of our country, the days of America are numbered.” Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Now, I’d like to point out to HSH readers that when you head over to Father Gordon’s TheseStoneWalls, don’t forget to be taken by the irony of what you are doing, that is, reading some of the most incisive, thoughtful observations and meditations on the blogosphere today, that is, written by someone, wrongly accused, wrongly imprisoned, who has lived for more than 18 years in the midst of the 24/7 absolute mayhem of prison.
Whether Father realizes it or not, all the posts have the sharpest of analogies with his own prison life, so edgy, in fact, that I wonder if most people get this. Just something to keep in mind. For this week’s post, you have to know that Father has recently read over some of the very recent rehashes of the prosecution. I’m sure he must be wondering if the prosecutors are suffering from some of the electile dysfunction that he writes about in this great article. Oh, yes… that link for a terribly good read today: here. What a title.
Filed under martyrdom, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
IN THIS POST, I’ll fisk the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on being an ACCOMPLICE, something which I hope will bring a bit of clarity to the situation.
But first, let’s begin with a few words of Cardinal Burke whom I hope will be the next Roman Pontiff should he somehow outlive Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, who, I hope, will outlive everyone.
Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”
Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”
Here’s the audio for that. Turn the volume up on your computer before starting. The above two paragraphs follow after about a minute of conversation to that you can get the flow of what’s being said.
See LifeSiteNews for the full article. People dismiss the Cardinal’s statement, saying that he is a canon lawyer, not a moral theologian, and therefore has no right to speak of such things. But this isn’t about “authority” of name-throwing or the declared competencies declared by letters after one’s name, is it? No. In fact, it is a matter of natural law, of reason. So, let’s reason this out, shall we?
From the old Catholic Encyclopedia digitized by NewAdvent and [fisked] by yours truly. Let’s use the example of providing a gun to someone, and then make some distinctions afterward.
Accomplice
A term generally employed to designate a partner in some form of evildoing. An accomplice is one who cooperates in some way in the wrongful activity of another who is accounted the principal. [The "principal" is a girl who will murder innocent people with a gun that she buys from you.]
From the viewpoint of the moral theologian not every such species of association is straightway to be adjudged unlawful. It is necessary to distinguish first of all between formal and material cooperation.
To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other. [You know of her plan to shoot innocent people, and willingly sell her the gun, wanting this to happen.]
On the contrary, to materially cooperate in another’s crime is to participate in the action so far as its physical entity is concerned, but not in so far as it is motived [motivated] by the malice of the principal in the case. [You don't know of her plan to kill innocent people, and sell her the gun in view of all the other motives there can be, such as self-defense, recreational target shooting, etc.]
For example, to persuade another to absent himself without reason from Mass on Sunday would be an instance of formal cooperation. To sell a person in an ordinary business transaction a revolver which he presently uses to kill himself is a case of material cooperation.
Then it must be borne in mind that the cooperation may be described as proximate or remote in proportion to the closeness of relation between the action of the principal and that of his helper. The teaching with regard to this subject-matter is very plain, and may be stated in this wise:
Formal cooperation is never lawful, since it presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice. [Wanting to murder the innocent is always evil.]
Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent [Selling a gun to someone you don't know wants to murder innocent people], and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action [Guns can also be used for self-defense, which is a commensurate reason as you don't know the other's intention of malice]. The reason for this assertion is patent; for the action of the accomplice is assumed to be unexceptionable , his intention is already bespoken to be proper [Selling guns with good intentions is always unexceptionable and proper, all things being equal], and he cannot be burdened with the sin of the principal agent, since there is supposed to be a commensurately weighty reason for not preventing it [such as the use of guns for self-defense].
[Let's re-cap that with the example of the HHS abortifacient mandate. Murdering the innocent in the womb is the express intention of the principal agent. She takes abortifacients to kill children. This must also be the wilfull intention of the accomplice, who provides Obamacare abortifacient mandated insurance. One is paying for the abortifacients to be used with the express intention of murdering innocent children. One is, de facto, ipso facto, in agreement with the girl who is out to murder children in her womb. Paying for Obamacare insurance cannot be mere material cooperation. While guns can be used for good purposes, abortifacients are very precisely manufactured to have the one purpose of murdering innocent people in the womb.]
Practically, however, it is often difficult to apply these principles [not in this case], because it is hard to determine whether the cooperation is formal or only material [not in this case], and also whether the reason alleged for a case of material cooperation bears due proportion to the grievousness of the sin committed by the principal, and the intimacy of the association with him [The evil of losing one's business because of not being able to pay fines because of not providing Obamacare fades into insignificance compared to the evil of willingly facilitating the murder of innocent people in the womb].
It is especially the last-named factor ["intimacy of association"] which is a fruitful source of perplexity. [This bit about being able to distance oneself from the perception of being an accomplice out of concern for scandal is simply an added factor. Whether or not others know of the sin doesn't mean there is no sin. Note well that this bit about "distancing" is very common among some bishops. But, our Lord sees all, no matter how distanced one is. Hell is not so far that He cannot put someone there.]
In general, however, the following considerations will be of value in discerning whether in an instance of material cooperation the reason avowed [saving one's business by paying for Obamacare] is valid or not. The necessity for a more and more powerful reason [not to be an accomplice] is accentuated in proportion as there is
• a greater likelihood that the sin would not be committed without the act of material cooperation [It has been shown time and again that the introduction of contraceptives/abortifacients is immediately followed by a sharp rise in sexual activity, promiscuity and abortion. When you throw such things at people, they will be used, even and especially by those who would have stayed chaste until marriage.];
•a closer relationship between the two [The employer/employee relationship is about as close as it gets. If the employer provides abortifacients, the employee will feel encouraged to think that it is O.K. to use them with the blessing of the employer, even though the employer has said that he personally disagrees with their use. No one builds a crematorium in Auschwitz and then says to the Commandant that he personally disagrees with the use of the crematoriums. That would be ludicrous. It is what some bishops already do with very bad advice.]; and
•a greater heinousness in the sin, especially in regard to harm done either to the common weal or some unoffending third party. [The common weal is destroyed more easily and quickly and thoroughly in this way than in any other way. The unoffending third party, the innocent child in the womb, is murdered. This is a greater heinousness any way you look at it.]
It is to be observed that, when damage has been done to a third person [the murdered child in the womb], the question is raised not only of the lawfulness of the cooperation, but also of restitution to be made for the violation of a strict right [How does one even restore the right to life to one who is already murdered?]. Whether in that case the accomplice has shared in the perpetration of the injustice physically [Yes.] or morally (i.e. by giving a command, by persuasion, etc.) [Yes.] whether positively [Yes.] or negatively (i.e. by failing to prevent it) [Yes.] the obligation of restitution is determined in accordance with the following principle. All are bound to reparation who in any way are accounted to be the actual efficient causes of the injury wrought, or who, being obliged by contract [In this case, natural law and the ten commandments], express or implied, to prevent it, have not done so [There it is]. There are circumstances in which fellowship in the working of damage to another makes the accomplice liable to restitution in solidum; that is, he is then responsible for the entire loss in so far as his partners have failed to make good for their share. [One will be at a loss on the brink of hell, will one not?] Finally, mention must be made of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, governing a particular case of complicity. It provides that a priest who has been the accomplice of any person in a sin against the Sixth Commandment is rendered incapable of absolving validly that person from that sin, except in danger of death, and then only if there be no other priest obtainable. [I wonder what politically correct priests will say to our Lord about their lack of fatherly governance in parishes.]*
*The article’s bibliographical data are placed in this post after the “continue reading” button below.
* * *
The author of this article is a bit carried away with “intention”. This feeds into what would later be condemned by Pius XII as situation ethics with its proportionalism lacking, by definition, any true comparative possibility. However, one merely needs to ask what one is doing as well as what the intention is. For instance, providing flowers for your wife to beautify her dreary hospital room is no reason to steal flowers from the local flower shop. In this case of the provision of abortifacients, what one is doing is commensurate with why one is doing it, even if one comes up with different reasons. For instance, the what of buying Obamacare abortifacient insurance is evil. The only reason why one would provide abortifacients is to murder the innocent in the womb. Even if one says that one’s only intention is to save one’s business from being shut down by Obama, this rings as hollow as any cry for help that one screams out as one falls into hell.
By the way: There are those who say that since the murder of innocent people in the womb is only a possibility, though really a probability, there is not guilt involved. But that would be like saying that the gun dealer who sells a gun to someone for the specific purpose of killing innocent people is not guilty of a sin just because it snowed later that day and the intended victims got away. That’s just ludicrous.
Please, use the sharing buttons!
Filed under Catholic, martyrdom, Persecution, politics, Pro-Life, separation of church and state
[I'm re-posting this June 16 2012 article at the top of the blog for, well, a certain reason. Sigh. Even the WordPress crowd doesn't know how to handle this situation. What are we coming to in Amerika?]
This is the avitar of “Robert”, over at the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Pleasant, huh?
POTUS Barack Hussein Obama has stooped to a new low, hiring a team of militant hate-bloggers to attack religious freedom from the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America.
The tax-payer funded computers and offices used are but a stone’s throw from the Oval Office, precisely at 725 17th St NW:
I received what seemed to be an innocuous comment from a self-proclaimed atheist, who was wanting to know more about a nine year old’s perspective inasmuch as the faith of that little boy shut the mouths of many an atheist in one of my parishes some years ago. I would have thought this was a sincere inquiry, and was pleased to let the nine year old be a voice of reason and religion in the public square that is filled with so many atheists who are, instead, insincere. So, in view of that little boy, I answered that atheist’s comment on that post as best I could HERE.
It wasn’t very long before HSH became the object of a nefarious attack, though this was short lived:
Don’t worry, my Holy Souls Hermitage WordPress.com blog is not a fraudulent web page, and is protected by the awesome WordPress no-java-script allowed security system! So…
“Hah!” quoth I, as I set to look for possible answers as to why such a thing would happen. I took a gander at the IPv4 address of the atheist’s comment, and then did a search on a run of the mill blog stats program which is running in the background overseas for just such events as this. I easily found the IPv4, in tandem with another within the same assigned range [click to enlarge (the bits in bold are my additional notes)]:
It’s like a “look what I found and now you take care of it” situation. As it is, I found that these IPv4 addresses frequently work in tandem. Surely, thought I at first, “Executive Office of the President” meant that these athiest guys were, like, the president and ilk of the local gardening club. But, no, that wasn’t it. I did a bit more searching…
725 17th Street, NW is, in fact, the New Executive Office Building of the President of the United States of America.
But there’s more. “Hey!” quoth I. “These guys got a blog that they were trying to advertise on my blog, providing the real reason behind the comment, right? Advertising one’s website or blog is not a required field in the comment form. I visited that blog. Sigh.
All this time I was thinking that this was all on the up and up. You know, just another atheist guy on a coffee-break in the president’s office, sincerely checking out my blog, letting himself be challenged by the nine year old boy who believes in Jesus. I mean, I think I must have half the offices of the Department of Defense reading such posts as this on my blog during their coffee breaks, so, why not the White House? Wrong. Going out of one’s way to advertise a blog address from the tax-payer funded Executive Office of the President of the USA is not an incompetent mistake; it’s a calculated move, right? They are paid to be careful, to do exactly what they are told. Obama has always made it clear that there will be no dissenter in his offices.
Obama’s Executive Office’s blog is a hate-blog, filled with world class and quite violent anti-religious-freedom hate-speech, all with your tax dollars! I wonder if anyone else is getting such visits from these IPv4 addresses…
The statements made by the hate bloggers have to be taken as a threat inasmuch as they emanate directly from the Office of the most powerful political force in the world. It’s a team of hate-bloggers hired from among the ever diminishing crowd of Obama sychophants. “Robert” (the blogger’s handle), mind you, has an M.A. from Georgetown (sigh), so he must know what he’s talking about as an official spokesman for the President, right? Let’s take a look at some of the statements on the blog, with my emphases and [comments]:
This guy, this team, of the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America, is out of control. And that’s what’s intended, right? The Executive Office of the President is a reflection of the Oval Office of the President.
I edited the blog address out of the approved comment, since, of course, error, as error, has no rights, particularly when error is being violent. I’m not about to point my readers to such trash as that. In this post, however, I have made an exception. If you want to see the intellectual level of these Obama sycophant lackeys, google some of the quoted phrases above. Inconsistences, contradictions, hypocrisies, really evil equivocations and out and out lying are everywhere to be seen. The subtitle to the blog, about embracing the tyranny of relativity on the most individual level says it all.
WHAT MAKES ME UPSET is the way way the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America is so willing to the use the sufferings of a little boy to advance its anti-religious freedom agenda. The POTUS hates the faith of this boy. The faith of this boy is a danger to the President, precisely because this little boy is a voice of goodness and kindness and truth and friendship. The President wants to get the voice of that little boy out of the public square, thinking that it is a danger to society to have someone like him speaking of goodness and kindness. In case you hadn’t clicked on the link above, be prepared for a shock of goodness and kindness HERE.
Obama’s hate bloggers try to parade about under cover of anonymity. COWARDS! They kick the little boy in the face and run, squealing in glee! Of course, if other branches of the government that frequently visit this blog (NNIC, USAIC, DHS, etc.) wanted to provide the names of these guilty cowards to Congress, you know, for an investigation as to why it is that tax-payers have to pay for such anti-Constitution and cowardly acts against a boy’s faith, well, they have the means to find out who was sitting at which computer when, right? Right. We’re waiting. I mean, what is this: We’re actually paying for hate-bloggers in the Executive Office of the President of the United States to frighten children? This is America? Really?
Filed under atheism, news, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
Obama’s Obamacare persecution — hand in hand with a most willing John Boehner — will not prevail against the Church, which conquers in the fidelity of the martyrs.
Filed under martyrdom, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
Remember when Obama was caught on microphone to say to Putin’s aide that he was to relay the message to Putin that he, Obama, would have more freedom after the election, a statement which was not repudiated when Romney brought this up in a debate?
Remember when the Obama admin (Department of Homeland Security) said that all returning vets are potential terrorists [had the military been allowed to vote, would the outcome have been different?], along with all those who are peacefully pro-life, and can therefore be remanded, on that mere potentiality, to an offshore prison camp for terrorists without anyone knowing it even for life (however soon that may then end)?
Remember the Monday before Super Tuesday in Madison Wisconsin, 5 November 2012, when Obama said the following?
Sometimes you gotta fight. Sometimes you gotta stand on principle. If the price of peace in Washington is cutting deals to cut students off financial aid [free abortifacients], or get rid of funding to Planned Parenthood [which the Department of Health and Human Services equated with the government, saying that the Catholic Church is out to bring down the goverment by not wanting to pay for Planned Parenthood], or let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions [like the sickness of healthy fertility, which brings about a "punishment" (as Obama calls it) of a baby] or eliminate health care for millions of folks on Medicaid [which is exactly what Obamacare does by over 700 billion $$ wiped out] who are poor [except for Planned Parenthood clinics in African American neighborhoods for the sake of black genocide] or elderly [all to be euthanitised with obamacare], or disabled [all to be aborted from now on, because all you disabled people out there have no value for his hitleresque* vision], I won’t pay that price [of peace]. That’s not a deal I’ll take. That’s not bipartisanship, that’s not bipartisanship. That’s not change. That’s surrender.
Spoken like a true Marxist. The Catholic Church will be put down with all the rest he wants to eliminate.
*People mock any use of Hitler’s name as all being in the category of exaggeration, the old reductio ad hitlerum trick to be dismissed as easily as Williamson dismissively denied the Holocaust, because, you know, when we say NEVER AGAIN! — which begs for an analogy with other genocides that are now going on or will start up shortly — it’s said that such an assertion is never actually to be used for an analogy with any other genocide since that would mean that NEVER AGAIN! would actually mean NEVER AGAIN!, and we wouldn’t want that, because we’re not sincere, but rather want genocide when it pleases us, like with the slaughter of children in the womb, the slaughter of the handicapped, the slaughter of the elderly, the slaughter of those who say NEVER AGAIN! and actually mean it.
Filed under Catholic, Persecution, politics, Pro-Life, separation of church and state
If you’re careful in watching the opening scenes of For Greater Glory, on the big screen or on DVD, you’ll notice scenes taking place in church, very long lines for Confession, lines for baptism, lines for, get this, weddings. Ever see that before? That’s what happens when people all of a sudden realize that they will soon not have any more priests, as all the priests are being deported or killed. They are taking advantage of getting the sacraments while the getting is good. Good on them.
But people! Don’t wait until the last second. You might not get that last second. Keep yourself current with the sacraments, especially Confession!
In the picture above you see a general of the Cristeros army, General Vega, a priest. He is giving absolution to General Gorostieta just moments, it turns out, before Father Vega gets a bullet to the head and Gorostieta gets a bullet to the back. Gorostieta died in the attempt to get Father Vega, now mortally wounded, out of harm’s way and into the hands of another priest so that Father Vega could also go to confession before he died. And this is what religious freedom is all about. The freedom to witness to our Lord, right unto death. We always have that freedom even if someone should try to and indeed take our lives. We always have the freedom to be a martyr. I love that.
When you don’t have any priests around, what will America do, vote in Obama for a third term? Probably. Probably a rigged election. But heaven will rejoice with so many new martyrs.
Remember! Eternity lasts an eternity. It’s really wonderful to be in heaven for eternity! It’s heavenly.
Remember! Believers are supposed to take up their cross, which might be a very literal cross! And that’s O.K. I’m enthusiastic to go to heaven, however it is that I’ll be getting to go there in our Lord’s goodness and kindness, in His grace.
For those following these posts on “readers” or “feeds”, why not stop by the blog itself and take a look at the Ferocious Holy Souls Hermitage Confessions Widget on the sidebar of the blog:
http://holysoulshermitage.com
You won’t regret it.
Filed under Catholic, Confession, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
The hanging of the cristeros “from Monterrey to Veracruz”…
Here’s the response of General Gorostieta to the ”agreement” of Calles, who only pretends to compromise by providing just a little tiny bit of some religious freedom:
We will defeat this government. We will overthrow Calles. And we will establish a democratic government that repects the rights of the people, especially the basic right to worship God in peace. And with God on our side we will prevail.
Of course, God is not so much on our side as we are to be on God’s side, though for us to be on God’s side God has to first of all be on our side, as it were, so to speak. You get the idea.
The general’s statement sealed the rest of the Cristeros’ uprising against the monstrous President Calles. The statement would still be hanging in the air when the general himself would give his life for the cause of religous freedom for a religion in which he now believed. True life begins the other side of death, does it not? It does.
Again, just as a reminder, to those who think that religious freedom, freedom to live by one’s conscience also in public life, isn’t such a big deal, and that religious minded people ought to be content with freedom of worship alone, which is what Obama thinks… such people ought to remember that the two, private worship and public engagement, cannot be separated. When there is no freedom of religious conscience in public life, all private worship will shut down as a danger to the state. Saying Mass will be a capital crime, subversion, a risk to national security. And then the wholesale slaughter, “ethnic cleansing” will ensue.
That’s the way it’s been for some two thousand years. Know your history. Watch it play out again.
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, religion, separation of church and state
After being stabbed with a bayonet in the back (because the government crowd were cowards), Blessed Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio starts to write on the ground to which he had dropped:
With his own blood, he traces out the sign of the cross, the sign of our salvation, for in this sign do we conquer with Christ Jesus…
He then says: “I’m going home!” As he says this, he’s shot in the back (because that’s the only way cowards can do this to a boy).
He’s then kicked into a grave where they killed him…
Dead.
That’s what atheism is all about. That’s what death mongering governments are all about.
Have you looked at the provisions of Obamacare recently? It’s all about power. About death. Death of youngsters in the womb. Death of our elderly. Death of the vulnerable. Because that’s what cowards do. We have cowards leading the government of these United States. What to do about it?
Vote Obama out.
Of course, we’ve seen a huge amount of election fraud favoring Obama already. Most of the military have been excluded from voting. Many voter machines select Obama even though the vote went for someone else. Etc. Etc. Etc. It’s widespread.
Then what?
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
Here’s a great shot of President Calles, the president of Mexico in the 1920s and the leader of the persecution of Catholics, having tens and tens and tens of thousands of Catholics murdered, men, women and children.
He’s looking at a crucifix given to him during a conversation with his adversary, General Enrique Gorostieta Delarde. Here’s that conversation that I typed out as I watched the DVD of the film:
* * *
President Calles: Your war is coming to end very soon.
General Gorostieta: You here to concede? … It’s not my war. It is your war. You declared war on freedom.
President Calles: I know you for a long time and I know you’re not a fool. So you know that this war is not about freedom. It is not about religion. It’s about who is going to decide the fate of Mexico and it’s people.
General Gorostieta: Well, the people of Mexico have spoken.
President Calles: They did speak, but they elected me president, not you. I run things in this country.
General Gorostieta: Not for long.
President Calles: An agreement is being discussed. Mexico and Rome are going to make peace.
General Gorostieta: An agreement?
President Calles: No one wants this war any more, Enrique.
General Gorostieta: Mexico is bleeding on its own fields. Mexico is hanging from telegraph poles from Monte Rey to Vera Cruz. Of course you need an agreement. But freedom has no compromise. By definition it is absolute. And that is why we will be victorious. Keep your agreement.
President Calles: Please spare me your rhetorical idealism, and tell me, what do you really want?
General Gorostieta: Absolute freedom. Is that in the agreement?
President Calles: The agreement is all but sealed.
General Gorostieta: This is yours. Your agreement. Not ours.
President Calles: You’re holding your fate in your hands.
General Gorostieta: The fate of Mexico, the destiny of Mexico… It’s in God’s hands, not yours or mine. Viva Cristo Rey!
Comment: In 73 B.C., Spartacus and 6000 slaves were crucified — crucified mind you — along 200 kilometers of the Appian way, from Rome to Capua. General Gorostieta mentions in this conversation that Calles has hung the Cristeros from telegraph poles from Monterrey to Veracruz, which is — what? — over a thousand kilometers? An exaggeration? Not if you let that statement be a symbol for all who were being starved to death in death camps (which were like forerunners of Hitler’s concentration camps) and who were summarily murdered and hacked to pieces. If you were the greatest general in Mexico, a military genius, and you knew that the man sitting in front of you was a liar and on his way out, would you make a deal with him?
By the way, just to say, they had tried peaceful means, an economic boycott. That’s precisely what aggravated Calles into murdering tens of thousands of people.
Such a world we live in! And die in! Our home is in heaven. Yikes!
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
One of the greatest war speeches of all time was given by General Enrique Gorostieta Delarde, spiking the enthusiasm of the Cristeros. Seconds before leading his men into battle, with little Jose as the flag bearer, he proclaimed this:
Today we are going to send a message. We are going to send a message to Calles and to the rest of the world, that freedom is not just for writers, and for politicians and for fancy documents. Freedom is our homes, our wives, our children, our faith. Freedom is our lives, and we will defend it or die trying. It is not only our duty to defend it, but it is our right. You must remember that men will fire bullets, but God decides where they land. Viva Cristo Rey! Y viva! Viva Cristo Rey! Y viva! Viva Cristo Rey! Y viva!
Now, I’ve previously been of the opinion that it would be foolish for a bunch of people to try to take down a government. Governments even like little uprisings so that they can have an excuse to quash them and, with that, make people all the more submissive to abuse of power. That was what many said at the start of the Catholic rebellion in Mexico in the 1920s. But then the greatest military leader of Mexico took up the lead, and before you knew it, concessions were in hand.
I think that Obama’s idea (in his Marxist way) is to force a Catholic rebellion here in America in our time by trying to force Catholics to pay for the murder of children in the womb by way of his Obamacare. The present law makes things difficult for any rebels. Anyone who rebels — even in thought — is automatically entitled a terrorist, and is lawfully whisked away to Gitmo without anyone knowing it, with no lawyers possible, until the person dies. I’m talking about life-long U.S. citizens by the way.
However, there’s one premise missing from that scenario. Obama is counting on the military. But all Obama has done is to upset the military, particularly our special ops, black ops crowd, the CIA, the FBI, the Navy Seals, DEVGRU… Not too smart on the part of our islamophile.
I keep hearing until this very day that our military is not supportive of Obama’s moves to be at the ready to impose Martial Law in the face of a popular rebellion. Why would he think there is surely going to be a popular rebellion coming up soon? I keep hearing that our law enforcement agencies want absolutely nothing to do with it. To quote: “Hell, no!” Interesting.
Let’s just repeat what the General said:
Freedom is not just for writers, and for politicians and for fancy documents. Freedom is our homes, our wives, our children, our faith. Freedom is our lives, and we will defend it or die trying. It is not only our duty to defend it, but it is our right.
Now, in saying all this, I’m not in any way saying that taking up arms in self-defense – if it should seem like it’s coming to that – is the way to go. Not at all. Clear?
Instead, there is another way. Peaceful means. No paying into the Obamacare death tax. That will mean revenge by the Obamacare politbureau. Even imprisonment. But you can’t imprison everyone. And pretty much all religious denominations have called themselves Catholic concerning this issue of religious freedom. There’s no economy in the world, especially the U.S. economy right now, that can imprison so many people. I would call on people to just let themselves get imprisoned. As the economy goes down the tubes altogether, truly a threat to national security in a military sense, that is when it will be deemed by the military that enough is enough, and they will call Obama a traitor, as indeed he is, in every way. Political prisoners, martyrs of conscience, will be freed, and we will move on. I think that anything more than that on the part of any would be rebels would not be just. Why, again? Because there are viable peaceful means, that’s why.
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
So, this fellow, beatified Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio, a Cristeros martyr, whose young teenage body has been crushed with torture, is being marched to his death by the incredibly, wonderously brave soldiers of the Freemason, Socialist, Marxist government of Mexico.
Even more defenseless than he are the millions of little ones being aborted under Obamacare. It’s a matter of abuse of power, of sucking all power over life and death unto oneself — or so one thinks — proving this by murdering the most defenseless. The more one kills little kids, the more power one thinks one has. Just ask Obama and his henchmen, especially his henchwomen like the head of Health and Human Services. “Death to kids!” they scream. “Vote for us and feel the power!” they shout.
Then there are those with a conscience, those who know that real life is not about power but instead is about God’s love. They show us the way, the way home. We thank them for that. We thank little Jose. But to be sincere, we have to follow up on their example.
Did I mention that the DVD of the film is out?
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
If I remember rightly, this guy (in the picture above) is the town constable, turned torturer on behalf of the “there is no God” government that was persecuting Catholics not all that long ago down in Catholic Mexico.
This fellow, who is being tortured, having his feet cut to ribbons, is the now beatified martyr, Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio. He’s just a young teenager.
People who torture others are cowards. People who torture kids are worse than just cowards.
Why do they do it, you ask? Because they are afraid of God. “But they are atheists!” you say. Right. There is no one more afraid of God than a so-called atheist.
The best way to prove that God does not exist, for an atheist, is to torture youngsters. Surely, in that case, God, if there is a God, would intervene. Right?
The torture, meant to have young Jose say “Death to Christ the King!” did not work. Jose kept screaming out: “Long live Christ the King!” “Viva Cristo Rey!”
Here’s a shot of Jose being asked by his godfather[!] to say “Death to Christ the King” in order to save his life. It is a worse torture to see others live without any conscience at all. What anguish there is when, in all charity, one would like one’s persecutor to repent and be filled with life and go to heaven.
He proclaims: “Viva Cristo Rey!” “Long live Christ the King!”
He’s then stabbed. He’s then shot.
And this proves the intervention of Christ the King, of God Most High, among us in such trying circumstances. Only with the supernatural provision of supernatural charity can such a one as little Jose rise to the occasion and be super charitable, forgiving, full of love, full of enthusiasm to go home to heaven.
Our Lord did not come to save us from the roughness of the consequences of original sin, from death in this world, but rather to provide us His grace which will wisk us right on to heaven when we provide the loving witness to the Lord. The unbelievers say: “Come down from the cross!” Instead, it is the divine grace within us which has us stay on the cross with all determination, in all good friendship with our crucified Lord, now risen to bring us to life.
Here’s the thing: when you see people like young Jose being tortured and starved to death and otherwise hacked to pieces and shot, in their tens of thousands, what does one do? Watch and then say, “Death to Christ the King!”?
What is the just-war theory for if not self-defense of the innocent?
Self-defense against unjust and deadly aggression is not screaming “Come down from that cross!” Instead, it is an act of charity made possible for us by the Christ Jesus choosing not to come down from the cross.
Self-defense on behalf of self or others is a contribution to the virtue of justice, which is what will bring a modicum of peace.
Filed under atheism, Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
At the time of the Cristeros, when Catholics were being slaughtered in their tens of thousands by the Freemaso / Socialist / Marxist government in Mexico within living memory of any of your surviving great grandparents, the Holy See was petitioned for a response concerning the self-defense of the Catholic population in their popular uprising against such injustice. The Holy See, however, was extremely slow to respond, knowing that self-defense is legitimate on the one hand, but not wanting to look like a foreign military power on the other hand. Meanwhile, the Cristeros won the day, though at the cost of many martyrs.
Those martyrs are not like islamicist suicide bombers, but are, instead, real saints. Both Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, have beatified and canonized many Cristeros martyrs, lay people, priests and bishops. Some of them had an indirect role to play with the uprising. Many of them had a very direct role to play.
Contrast all this, if you can, with this bit from the pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world of the Second Vatican Council, a short section on the promotion of peace, how to go about it
Peace is not the mere absence of war or the simple maintenance of a balance of power between forces, nor can it be imposed at the dictate of absolute power. It is called, rightly and properly, a work of justice.
It is the product of order, the order implanted in human society by its divine founder, to be realized in practice as men hunger and thirst for ever more perfect justice.
The common good of the human race is subject to the eternal law as its primary principle, but its requirements in practice keep changing with the passage of time. The result is that peace is never established finally and for ever; the building up of peace has to go on all the time. Again, the human will is weak and wounded by sin; the search for peace therefore demands from each individual constant control of the passions, and from legitimate authority untiring vigilance.
Even this is not enough. Peace here on earth cannot be maintained unless the good of the human person is safeguarded, and men are willing to trust each other and share their riches of spirit and talent. If peace is to be established it is absolutely necessary to have a firm determination to respect other persons and peoples and their dignity, and to be zealous in the practice of brotherhood. Peace is therefore the fruit also of love; love goes beyond what justice can achieve. Peace on earth, born of love for one’s neighbor, is the sign and the effect of the peace of Christ that flows from God the Father. In his own person the incarnate Son, the Prince of Peace, reconciled all men to God through his death on the cross. In his human nature he destroyed hatred and restored unity to all mankind in one people and one body. Raised on high by the resurrection, he sent the Spirit of love into the hearts of men.
All Christians are thus urgently summoned to live the truth in love, and to join all true peacemakers in prayer and work for peace. Moved by the same spirit, we cannot but praise those who renounce violence in defense of rights, and have recourse to means of defense otherwise available to the less powerful as well, provided that this can be done without injury to the rights and obligations of others or of the community.
Comment: That last paragraph looks to have been written by a bunch of peacenics, right? Wrong. Ever so wrong. Take a look again, more closely, especially at the words at the end beginning with “provided that this can be done…” So, there we are. Lots to think about there.
By the way, the greatest film of the year, epic in every way, and historically true, and age appropriate to any age in my opinion, is available on DVD.
Filed under Catholic, films, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
Obama says that he can constitutionally limit freedom of religion to worship in closed buildings. Chief Justice Roberts agrees. Roberts signed his legislation, his judicial trumping of the constitution, which cannot but have the effect of a death warrant, a persecution of Catholics, even to death as time marches quickly on.
So, the attempt is already being made to force Catholics to formally participate in murdering their young neighbors in the womb by trying to force them to pay for abortifacients for girls who, in Obama’s opinion, just because they are girls, just can’t help themselves in their college years and need to have sex, sex, sex, you know, for free, as if they are having sex with him (as per his obscene political television message). But it’s O.K., he says, for Catholics to have Mass indoors, all that hocus pocus stuff.
Lots of Catholics agree. I’ve met many. They think Obama is God’s gift to the world, that abortion and contraception and planned parenthood is just great. They will vote for Obama, of course, and then go where after they die?
Anyway, one cannot divide one’s conscience which must be formed by the Church and which one must act on in public life (rejecting Obamacare and its penalties), from worship.
How is it that one could offer Jesus, the Head of the Mystical Body, during Mass, but then go ahead and put the littlest, most defenseless members of that same Mystical Body to death in the womb? “What you have done to the least of these you have done to me” says the King of the Universe. The cowardice of killing such defenseless people is what? There’s just no description…
As Obama wades through the corpses of the little ones he’s helped to slaughter on his way to judgment (for we will all be judged by our Lord), do you think he and those who vote for him so enthusiastically will get a good hearing?
Just to say, there will be no freedom of worship if he is re-elected. Catholics will be held to be enemies of the state. The Department of Health and Human Services, the new polit-bureau (which can legislate at will, on anything), has already stated that the Catholic Church is out to bring down the Government of the U.S.A. by not wanting to support Planned Parenthood.
This is the worst it’s ever been ever in the history of mankind. I mean, usually, tyrannical rulers just want people to go against their conscience by offering incense to the gods, to the politicians of the day. Sometimes, as in this past century, until today, they have instigated genocides of hundreds of millions of peoples. Hundreds of millions.
But now, it is insisted that people pay for the sacrifice of the little ones to the politicians of the day against their consciences. That brings it all to a whole other level. We are on the threshold.
There will be no freedom of worship. Instead, let’s just repeat that picture:
For Greater Glory is now on DVD. A. Must. See.
Filed under films, martyrdom, Persecution, politics, religion, separation of church and state
Yikes! V’s graphic at V’s sanctepater.com. Now, just to say…
The Al Smith Dinner was the un-Last Supper, in which the littlest ones, the un-born, were made all so un-important, you know, those un-born, who were ideologized as those who were mere differences in political platforms to be set aside for the evening’s jocular tyranny of relativism…
Sure, those littlest ones among us were given a wink and a nod of solidarity, but that only played into the hands of the number one enemy of the Church in the world today. The cameras never panned to the floor. Had they done so, you would have seen that they were all situated on a small mountain of babies’ corpses that had been bulldozed into the dining hall for the evening for the proper atmospherics.
The rest of us, who don’t understand such “prudence”*, will go to our deaths singing, please God, the Te Deum and, while the death camps send up their smoke and the glistening ashes settle upon America and environs, the compromisers with the world, the flesh and the devil will surmise that we are not going about the new evangelization in the right way, and from on high will despise our deaths as the result of incompetent consensus building. “If only they had known better!” they will exclaim as guests for the next Al Smith dinner are short-listed.
The Immaculate Conception’s Divine Son had His own way of going about making friends and influencing people, drawing all to Himself by way of truth provided in all charity, and this from the cross, the Sacrifice not of the Al Smith Dinner, but of the Last Supper.
That’s how to embrace those who are now redeemed and who need to be saved.
Here’s the Te Deum sung by so many martyrs on their way to their deaths, to their ultimate witness to the truth and charity of Mary’s Son, to their bid for unity in worship of God in eternity. The words are provided in Latin and English, for your memorization pleasure:
Also, if you missed the critique of Cardinal Dolan’s rationalization for the invitation of Obama, here it is with the link. And here’s some fisking for the speech at the dinner itself:
It traditionally falls to the host of this enjoyable evening, the Archbishop of New York, to “call it a night.” ["night"]
Thank you, everybody, for your gracious company this evening.
What a unique honor and joy to welcome and thank our two candidates, and Mrs. Romney.
Our two candidates claim that both your parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, are “big tents,” containing extraordinarily diverse, even contrary, opposite people and groups. Well, you don’t have a thing over the Catholic Church. We got both Biden and Ryan! [Well, no. We don't. Biden has exclaimed time and again that he believes the doctrine of the Catholic Church that life begins at conception, and then goes on to push abortion from conception onward with all his energy, thuggery and buffoonery. This lifts him out of communion with the Church. He is ex-communicant with the Church. The only tent the Church has is the "tent", the Body, which our Lord took upon Himself for our redemption: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν /// Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis /// And the Word became flesh, and pitched His tent among us. In having the un-born ripped to shreds, Biden is having our Lord ripped to shreds: "What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me. Biden is not in communion with the Catholic Church.]
Governor Romney, thank you for being up here sitting next to me; although I must confess I was secretly hoping the Republican candidate would be Governor Christie, because I sure would have looked good sitting next to him!
Mr. President I trust you’ll be able to report to Mrs. Obama that I ate my vegetables and salad. If she had been “first lady” instead of Mamie Eisenhower when I was growing up in the 50’s, I wouldn’t be in this shape!
As you may know, I just returned from Rome a couple of hours ago, where I’m participating in the Synod of Bishops. Thanks to Mr. Mort Zuckerman’s jet, I will be able to return to Rome right after the dinner. [Yours truly also is good friends with the Zuckerman crowd, who frequent this very blog. Imagine that. The point is, let's not be distracted with the who's who list for the dinner.]
By the way, just before I left this morning, Pope Benedict XVI asked me to deliver a special personal message to both candidates. Mr. President, Governor Romney, do you know what the Holy Father asked me to tell you? . . . neither do I, because he said it in Latin. [This jocularity, though rightly siding with Mitt's incisive remark against Obama's abortifacient mandate and consonant slights of hand, relegates the gravity of what is happening with the persecution of the Catholic Church by Obama to the level of other jokes of the evening, such as the one which follows. The Cardinal will get more serious further below, when he launches into his "un"-speech. But we'll see what he does with that.]
Both candidates expressed shock that Mayor Bloomberg had a 16 ounce cup in front of him. Not to worry, Your Honor — I explained to them that it was not a sugar-laden soft drink, but a martini.
The mayor might want to challenge that remark, but, I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, Candy Crowley has already said she agrees with me. [A great jab at the horrifically biased type of "moderator" presiding over the debates. But this was a kind of seamless garment bias.]
Only the Al Smith dinner could bring together two men, of the same calling, who disagree on almost everything, both of whom think they are the world’s experts on everything, who don’t like even being in the same room together: Roger Ailes and Chris Matthews.
The Al Smith Dinner . . . in thanking all of you for your presence and support, might I suggest that this annual dinner actually shows America and the Church at their best?
Here we are: in an atmosphere of civility and humor, hosted by a Church which claims that “joy is the infallible sign of God’s presence;” men and women; young and old; of every ethnic and racial background;
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents;
Catholics, Christians, Jews, Latter-Day Saints, people of no particular creed;
people of wealth, yes, but some folks as well who barely get by;
guests from Westchester and the Bronx; Dutchess County and Staten Island;
Grateful to be people of faith and loyal Americans;
Loving a country which considers religious liberty our first and most cherished freedom, convinced that faith is not just limited to an hour of Sabbath worship, but affects everything we do and dream;
privileged to be in the company of two honorable men [So, Obama was provided the honor by the Cardinal not just of being entitled "your honor" but calling him, in fact, honorable], both called to the noble vocation of public service, whose love for God and country is surpassed only by their love for their own wives and children [That statement just doesn't work any way you put it, does it?], and who, as happy as I hope they are to be here with us tonight, would rather be home with Michelle, Ann, and their families.
All of us reverently recalling a man of deep Catholic faith and ringing patriotism, who had a tear in his Irish eyes for what we would call, the “uns;”
– the un-employed
– the un-insured
– the un-wanted
– the un-wed mother, and her innocent, fragile un-born baby in her womb; [That's great, about the original Al Smith of yore, but I don't think he would appreciate what happened on this evening, the selling out of un-born in favor of niceness.]
– the un-documented
– the un-housed
– the un-healthy
– the un-fed
– the under-educated.
Government, Al Smith believed, should be on the side of these “uns,” but a government partnering with family, Church, parish, neighborhood, organizations and community, never intruding or opposing, since, when all is said and done, it’s in God we trust, not, ultimately, in government or politics.
Al Smith . . . the “happy warrior” on behalf of the “uns” who were so close to Jesus, or to the Native American Kateri Tekakwitha, and the “Angel to the Lepers of Hawaii,” Sister Mary Anne Cope, both women of New York whom this Sunday Pope Benedict will declare saints; so tenderly close to Bl. Mother Theresa of Calcutta who reminded us of the “five- finger gospel” — “As often as you do it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you do it for me!” [Just a reminder, your Eminence: Mother Teresa never had fund-raisers, ever. She was even known to refuse millions of dollars, telling the would-be donor to help those in need personally, since merely throwing money at anyone won't help anyone. Moreover, her "dialogue", consonant with that of the Holy Father, was to unabashedly bring pro-abort politicians to task. Remember the prayer breakfast -- another meal[!] — when she trounced Clinton and Gore and the whole pro-abort establishement, not with jocularity, but with a deadly serious lecture, televised for all the world to see. Let’s review, shall we? You yourself quoted Mother Teresa from this very video. What she did is what dialogue with pro-abort policians is all about, NOT what happened at the Al Smith dinner:]
God bless the memory of Al Smith!
God Bless the “uns!”
God bless the Al Smith Foundation in this Archdiocese of New York which continues his solicitude for the “uns!”
God bless all of you for helping them this evening! [$$$ The financial contributions are a drop in the bucket compared to the political milage Obama took from the evening. Obama would have had to pay much more in campaign finances in order to get such publicity for his continuing persecution of the un-born and oppression of the Catholic Church, his trouncing of the freedom of religion in America.]
God bless our two candidates! [God bless Hitler? Really?]
God bless America!
Thank God for this grand evening!
Amen.
Goodnight! [Night, yes. Good, nope. Your Eminence, with all due respect, you are right now in Rome discussing the new evangelization. Watch this guy in this video. This is what should have gone on at the Al Smith dinner. This is what real dialogue is all about with those who have been scandalized:]
* “prudence”= This is a cardinal virtue (no pun intended) which is all about the judgment of what is good in a particular circumstance. It is in quotes in context since I don’t think that the judgment to invite Obama was correct. Prudence is not a free for all, a tyranny of relativism in which everyone has the right to be wrong.
Filed under Catholic, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
Al Smith Dinner – FEAST OF ST. MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE -by Cardinal Dolan
[with HSH [comments] …]
Last week I was out in Anaheim for the annual Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus. It was, as usual, a most uplifting and inspirational event.
In his rousing address to the thousands of delegates, representing 1.8 million knights, Dr. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight, exhorted us to a renewed sense of faithful citizenship, encouraging us not to be shy about bringing the values of faith to the public square. This duty, he reminded us, came not just from the fact that we are Catholic, but also from the fact that we are loyal Americans.
He then went on to announce a promising initiative of the Knights of Columbus to foster civility in politics. Quoting a very recent study, he noted that over 80% of Americans are fed up with the negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging of our election-year process, and eagerly want a campaign of respect, substance, amity — civility! [I don't think even one person has argued against this. And I'm not sure if the claim of K of C authority is warranted. We just want some respect for the millions of babies that are being killed. Calling abortion wrong both in season and out of season is not negativity or judgmentalism, etc.]
For seven decades, the Al Smith Dinner here in New York has been an acclaimed example of such civility in political life. As you may know, every four years, during the presidential election campaign, the Al Smith Dinner is the venue of history, as it is the only time outside of the presidential debates that the two presidential candidates come together, at the invitation of the Al Smith Foundation, through the archbishop of New York, for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse ["discourse"]. This year, both President Obama and Governor Romney have accepted our invitation. I am grateful to them.
The evening has always had a special meaning, as it is named after Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated, in 1928, as a candidate for president, who was viciously maligned because of his own Catholic faith. Smith was known as The Happy Warrior, because while he fought fiercely for what he believed was right, he never sought to demonize those who opposed him. [People can do that on their own. No help needed.] And, the dinner named in his honor is truly life-affirming as it raises funds to help support mothers in need and their babies (both born and unborn) of any faith, or none at all. [It has always been the policy of the Archdiocese to support, for instance, houses for unwed mothers, while at the same time giving abortion referrals. This is not a case of double-effect either. Nor is there any "duress".]
The Al Smith Dinner has never been without controversy, since, as Carl Anderson reminded us, politics can inspire disdain and negativity as well as patriotism and civility.
This year is surely no exception [But there is quite a difference this year, isn't there?]: I am receiving stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama (and by the way, even some objecting to the invitation to Governor Romney).
The objections are somewhat heightened this year, since the Catholic community in the United States has rightly expressed vigorous criticism of the President’s support of the abortion license, and his approval of mandates which radically intruded [and continue to intrude] upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be. [Let's see...]
So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.
For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church [But it is an honor, right?]. It is an occasion of conversation ["conversation"]; it is personal, not partisan. [We are always personal, never partisan. Nor is this a matter of Catholic "opinion". This is about the Natural Law.]
Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate [That would be nice if the politicians were only politicians, that is, one arguing about the need for more infrastructure, and the other talking about the overriding need for fixing the economy. But this is about millions of innocent lives being killed off and the ongoing oppression of the Catholic Church, right here, right now.]. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them. [Post WWII wasn't about aborting the nation and world, was it? I think there was a baby-boom at the time.]
Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement [the constant rhetoric, even in the present note, is precisely that the engagement is lifted for the night] and dialogue [not only is there not dialogue on this night, the Obama administration called in Cardinal Dolan in the past only after all was said and done.]. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. [Hey! Great! But what's happening on this night? and what's otherwise happening?] Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements [Takes a lot of nerve to say that. Look, Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI receive such horrific people only to tell them what's what. Forget the jocularity and fun evenings and even dialogue. They are just told flat out what the truth is in all charity. Period.]. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States [More to that than that. Really.]. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. [Great!] What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President? [In other words, what the Cardinal saying, and this is very sad indeed, and I'm only recognizing this as I'm writing this now, is that the President has refused to dialogue about anything on any serious level with Cardinal Dolan, such an evening being as far as Obama will go. The Cardinal gets no dialogue. Nice words from Obama on that evening will just be spitting in the face of the Cardinal, and, through him, on the face of the Church. Meanwhile, Obama can claim to be great friends with the Catholic Church.]
Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. [Happy to hear that, but, I mean, it sure does seem to indicate a relativization of all important matters.] In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant [vibrant: abortion stops a beating heart. Dead. Cold. Not vibrant.] solidarity [with who? with what?] of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect. [There can be the exact opposite effect: "These Catholics really don't give a damn about life. They give a great pre-election photo-op though!"]
Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. [I agree.] That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. [It's not scheduled until 18 October, very near Super Tuesday. You can still back out.] I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them? [In view of all the comments above, it would be a scandal to invite them.]
No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be? [Sure. That's what HSH is all about. Pray for me, too.]
In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus [Uh-oh...], who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners [Can any true Christian think that Obama is a Christian in good standing? Let's just say it. The "sinners" Jesus ate with were no longer sinners. They converted and were His followers, repentant and now saints. They were not obstinately persecuting the Church and were not maniacs about aborting millions of children. Really.]; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone. [Just. Wow. Nobody but nobody is saying any of that. Ask what the evening is about. Ask what dialogue is about. It has been said a thousand times that the evening has nothing to do with serious dialogue or instruction in the truth in all charity for that matter. So, then, what is it about, a very credible photo-op for Obama? 18 October is the date. Plenty of time to rescind the invitation.]
Filed under news, politics, Pro-Life, separation of church and state
Here. Fr. Andrew was invited to lead the opening prayer at the 2012 Colorado Republican State Assembly and Convention in the Magness Arena at the University of Denver. The moral challenges facing our country are not caused by political affiliation, but rather by attacks on religious freedom. He invites all people of conscience to uphold religious freedom.
“The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church 2425
Filed under Catholic, Persecution, politics, separation of church and state
I’ve been following an important set of comments, and adding quite a few of my own, on WDTPRS, about Obamacare and the HHS mandate, here. There are important links with great material, such as this one here.
At a certain point, I wrote an email requesting for my “insurance” to be cancelled if it were not exempt from the Obamacare and HHS provisions for abortion, abortifacients, etc., by the end of July 2012, that is, before enforcement begins.
Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s! Praised be the name of the Lord!
When I began this series on the spirituality one might enjoy even though living under the yoke of dhimmitude, I imagined I would be writing for readers who are anywhere but in the United States, that is, until the Supreme Court decision making Catholics pay a penalty for the practice of their religion in not paying into the abortion superfund of Obamacare.
Of course, no one is forced to do anything. I won’t be paying any “penalties” or “taxes” either. That just goes back into the abortion fund, right? So, no.
I just can’t see paying for the deaths for the deaths of the least among us, those who are just conceived, those who are not yet born. I won’t do it.
Those who live under oppression can always do the right thing. We are called to be faithful. If we want to get to heaven, and heaven is forever by the way, then it’s all about…
Fidelity! Fidelity! Fidelity!
Look to Jesus. He’s conquered the world. He bears the scars to prove it. Do we?
UPDATE: Someone said that the enforcement dates are different according to the renewal date on the policy. Thus, if the renewal is comes up only after 1 August, it is only then that the enforcement would kick in. So, I’m checking into that.
UPDATE: There is a plea to map out for everyone in all their circumstances that which is formal or material cooperation, proximate or remote, distanced or not, etc. My response is to ask the USCCB, which has been pushing for civil disobedience based on the fact that paying into an abortion insurance fund, however you make it look, is what it is, formal cooperation in the death of children in the womb or just born, etc. Formal cooperation is a grave evil. And… and… there is a latae sententiae excommunication for formal cooperation in such a case, is there not? The bishops have called for massive civil disobedience. I won’t pay into such insurance, and won’t pay any penalties or taxes. Nope.
UPDATE: In response to a comment on that comments post on WDTPRS linked to above, I answered this:
As for the precedent of dioceses doing untoward things, well… that’s not how moral theology works. There’s no morality by democracy. You can always but always find a super conservative priest, a super conservative canon lawyer, a super conservative moral theologian, a super conservative ethics board, a super conservative moral theology journal, a super conservative ethics think tank, etc., all of whom will back one’s opinion about doing whatever one wants just because it’s the politically correct thing to do, not because it is consonant with Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterial interventions of the Church, which they will only haphazardly cite so as to look nice.
We also have to be discerning. I’ve also done quite a bit of moral theology in my day, that is, with some advanced, as it were, doubly post-graduate studies. I have plenty to say about formal and material cooperation which is proximate or remote or even “distanced[!]“. I have plenty to say about how the USCCB in decades past have misapplied these terms to get what they wanted in health care regarding the combinations of Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals in regard to abortion, etc.
The most conservative Archdiocese at the time, for instance, said that abortions were fine in Catholic hospitals for the reason that it was an out-patient procedure. The Catholic hospital was therefore “distanced” in cooperation.
The most conservative diocese at the time said that handing out date-rape pills was fine because, the super-conservative icon of orthodoxy moral theologian said: “It’s so small [the possibly just conceived baby], who will know the difference? So who cares?” Get it?
However, times have changed, perhaps. The USCCB has said that they are pushing so hard for the reason that paying into an abortion insurance fund would be formal cooperation. If they come up with some other sort of rubbish to say that one is only remotely, materially cooperating, you know, from a “distance”, changing their tune just because they are now under pressure from the laity instead of the government… well… I’d have some choice words to say about all that.
For myself, I can’t see cooperating in the death of little kids, whether by paying into the abortion super fund or subsidizing abortifacients (whenever all that kicks in). The super fund will gain about, what, 3 1/2 billion dollars a year if everyone kicks in? It’s a dollar a month for everyone, but I would guess that even the entire amount of a tax or penalty would go to these ends.
For my own insignificant life, we will see what happens. I suppose I’ll survive to see Obamacare tossed. Maybe not. Whatever… I just want to do the right thing. No compromise. Jesus has loved us too much, right unto death, with no compromise, for us, for me to start compromising by helping to murder the littlest among us. I don’t want Jesus to say to me at the judgment: “Get away from me you evildoer, I never knew you!” So, instead of that: Fidelity! Fidelity! Fidelity!
[[This is the comment of "Alan Aversa" on Fr Z's comments post. My own comment: "This shamelessly irresponsible decision seems like a recipe for mayhem. I’ve seen countries fall/rise by way of a coup d’état for less grave reasons." I'm not advocating that. I'm just sayin'. Obamacare is now the scare of SCOTUS = SCOTUScare...]]
Robert’s summary:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax. As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case. They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered.
The summary of the dissenters:
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.
The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.
I liked Clarence Thomas’s own succinct dissent the best: «JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. «I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate “economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.»
(source)
Basically, the door is now wide-open for federal “lifestyle taxes.” E.g.: taxes on being heterosexual because that, in many ways, “substantially affect[s] interstate commerce.” Taxes on being with Down Sydrome because those with Down’s Syndrome have a relative “economic inactivity” that “substantially affect[s] interstate commerce.” Taxes on being Catholic because being Catholic includes the refusal to materially or formally cooperate in the abortion and contraception industry, which also “substantially affect[s] interstate commerce.” The possibilities are endless because apparently “the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.”
Filed under Persecution, politics, Pro-Life, religion, separation of church and state
Accompany me, Father George David Byers, S.S.L., S.T.D., as I begin life as a Catholic Priest-Hermit by choice. Holy Souls Hermitage is dedicated to the sanctification of my fellow priests, bishops, deacons & seminarians going through the purgatory of this life or the next. Prayer and sacrifice go up, of course, for both Benedict XVI and the next Successor of Saint Peter.
All told, Masses offered for Benedict XVI came to 918.
י ב ר כ ך י ה ו ה ב ה ת א ם ל ת פ י ל ת מ ר י ם ה ק ד ו ש ה
May the Lord continue to bless you
according to the intercession of Mary Most Holy
