“The Last Acceptable Prejudice” continues

The television (the tabernacle of Satan, as Fr Groeschel would say) is tuned to a show which shall remain nameless. I did not choose the show, and have been making a concentrated effort to ignore it. However, the past several minutes have consisted in repeated insults against the Catholic Church, and a long segment praising homosexuality…

It’s one thing to disagree with a thing from a rational perspective, and quite another to level insults, poke fun, and dismiss a thing irrationally.

More and more it seems like the Catholic Church is everyone’s favorite punching bag. The York Times, The Boston Globe…most news outlets in general. And apparently, with the testimony of this particular talk show, the Church is the best new punchline for everything. Especially whatever of the Church’s teachings that [the insulters] misunderstand.

This latest episode consisted in mocking the Eucharist (a very grave offense), one of the hosts talked about receiving [from the Chalice] multiple times when she went to Mass because she was “still thirsty” (an alcoholic insinuation). I pray it was a joke. More concerning than if she received mulitple times (which is unnecessary and obviously disrespectful), is the flippancy with which she dismissed the Most Sacred Blood of Our Lord. She preferred its alcholic accidents to its supernatural graces. The Eucharist is not wine. It is not a symbol. The substance of the wine is changed (into the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ), even though the accidents remain the same (it still looks, smells, and tastes like wine–but it is not). Her dismissal of the Precious Blood, mocking the fact that its accidents remain, is a mockery of the price of Salvation. It’s disgusting. It’d disheartening.

I worry about the state of the world.

I pray during this month of the Precious Blood that more Christians become aware of the price of their Salvation and turn in love to the Precious Blood that poured forth from Our Lord on the Cross and made present in the Chalice during the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Sex-Ed, in Kindergarten?!?

This is just disgusting:


According to the 62-page draft proposal, beginning in kindergarten, school nurses will teach students proper terms such as “nipple, breast, penis, scrotum and uterus.” Once they are promoted to first grade, children will learn that sexual relations could happen between two men or two women. By the time students are 10 years old, instruction will include the various ways people can have intercourse, be it vaginally, orally or through “anal penetration,” according to the proposal.

Melanie Reynolds, a district health officer, defended the proposed curriculum, saying early education and intervention was needed to prevent HIV infection or other sexually transmitted diseases. She cited a report that said 40 percent of reported Chlamydia cases in county were people between the ages of 14 and 18, the Helena Independent Record reported.

Angela Helland-Hansen told the board that she was surprised to see that staff from Planned Parenthood were included in the committee that developed the document.

Why are we allowing Planned Parenthood to help with this when they stand to profit from these people who will be their future clients?” the Record reported.

They think telling 10 year olds how to have sex will help lower the rate of STDs and teenage pregnancy?!? Seeing that Planned [Barren]hood helped develop the curriculum it should be quite obvious that they are not concerned about childhood development or education, but only concerned about how to make money in the future (more children having sex + more younger children having sex = more STDs + more teenage pregnancies = boatloads of money + funds + grants for Planned [Barren]hood). If this passes, the public ought to be ashamed for having been duped!

I’m not opposed to teaching children age-appropriate anatomy, etc…. working with children now, and being more concerned about child abuse– children knowing the proper names for their body parts is a good thing. Do they need to know what all those parts can be used for? Certainly not when they’re 5… and not even when they are 10! If you don’t want 10 year olds having sex, don’t teach them how to do it… that’s a no-brainer.

Furthermore, shoving a liberal sexual education curriculum down the throats of 6 and 7 year olds by teaching them about homosexuality is just plain wrong (…speaking of HIV and other STDs). I can be lambasted with “intolerant” and “hate speech” accusations all day long, but the truth of the matter is that ‘tolerance’ does not exist. Everyone is intolerant of something… at the moment, those who want me to be “more tolerant” are the ones engaging in “intolerance”. My opinions, arguments, thoughts, and feelings, don’t matter and are considered “wrong” so I should change in order to be “tolerant”.

But why am I the one that has to change? Can they prove me to be in the “wrong”? (No) Arguments about “tolerance” are a waste of time. The real argument is truth. What’s true? What’s right? What’s just?

The more the the world embraces liberalism, the further the world falls away from Truth, Righteousness, and Justice.

Truth matters.

Independence Day

I saw a shirt a few years ago with a big American Flag on it, it read, “In America we’re born to be free, too bad we aren’t free to be born!” and was followed by several statistics on abortion. It’s the perfect t-shirt slogan about abortion in this  country.  How ironic. Abortion is a travesty of “freedom”.

In truth, we have lost the meaning of freedom. Our modern world has completely forgotten the truth. Instead of reality, we seek only convenience.

There is no world in which the pursuit of the common good can allow for the death of anyone, no matter how young or helpless. Murder is senseless, even more so as a ‘solution’. However, abortion is not merely murder. I don’t think there’s a word to describe the utter horror of abortion. A mother slaughtering her offspring–in the womb. No woman, no person, has the ‘right’, the “freedom” to kill anyone. To decide who lives and who dies. Especially a mother. A mother is charged with the sacred duty of protection. It’s her job to protect, defend, and love her child. Murder is a gross denial of motherhood. A dross denial of the dignity of being a woman. To murder your own child is the most abhorrent act possible.

The late Pope John Paul II once said, “a nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” This Independence Day, we, as a nation, celebrate our freedom and the hope of the “American Dream”. Abortion is the destruction of freedom, the destruction of hope, and the destruction of the American Dream.

More pictures

End abortion. Fight it. Pray for God’s mercy and justice.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into Hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Understanding the Sacraments

It’s unfortunate that our (human) understanding of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church has morphed so far from what the Church teaches. The great crisis of faith, why so many are fallen away Catholics, is because no one understands (properly) the Faith.

Many times in my experience with Religious Education and/or apologetics I hear people speak of the great Sacrament of Confirmation as being “one’s personal acceptance of the faith in which they were raised” (i.e., a teenager finally embraces Catholicism as his religion). While that sounds nice, it’s simply not true. The Sacraments are not dependent upon our understanding, they are entirely dependent upon God’s grace. Confirmation is about receiving the GIFTS of the HOLY SPIRIT. Not personal conversion.

Don’t get me wrong. Personal conversion is a wonderful necessity, but it needn’t precede the Sacraments. In fact, waiting on such a conversion could be a means of unnecessarily prolonging the reception of the Sacrament; when, the Sacrament is designed precisely to pour grace into the soul (a necessary precursor to conversion). Especially in our time, when the faith is constantly attacked on all sides, young Catholics NEED the graces of Confirmation (especially those wonderful gifts of the Holy Spirit) to guide and aide their faith and protect it from the world.

The difference between “pro-life” and “anti-abortion”

With the untimely news of George Tiller’s murder and the frenzy over the motive (which everyone assumes is from an “anti-abortion extremist”), there’s been a large increase in news articles, etc. discussing life issues. They reference two sides: the “pro-choice” side (or “abortion rights”), and the “anti-abortion” side. I have not found one secular news article using the term “pro-life” (please let me know of it if you see one).

Does it matter?

I think it does. I think it sets up a picture of how the media wants the public to view the pro-life movement (and, by extention, anyone who calls themselves “pro-life”). They don’t want you see the movement as fighting for the LIVES of human children. They want you to see the pro-life movement as a political ideology bent on restricting women’s “rights” (as if all women are born with the inherent “right” to kill their offspring); thus, pro-abortion (“pro-choice”– whose choice?) groups are referred to as those in favor of “abortion rights”. Set up as a debate between rights, instead of the real debate (between LIFE or death), the pro-life movement becomes seen and understood as restrictive and oppressive.

Impressive propagana, isn’t it?

Don’t be fooled. In the debate about rights we must first and foremost remember that we, as Americans, profess to be “created equal” with “certain inalienable rights” which include, as a foundation, the “right to LIFE” (my emphasis).

Who’s telling the truth?

Many others have commented on Obama’s speech at the Notre [Sh]ame commencement; I wasn’t planning to, but after coming across some stats that show that States with federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs have significantly lower abortion rates than those States which reject funding for abstinence-only programs, I can’t be silent.


Because just this month, a few weeks prior to Mr. Obama’s chatter about “common ground” to “reduce the number of abortions” he cut abstinence-only sex education programs from federal funding.

According to the data then, if we abandon abstinence-only sex education programs (because, who’s going to use them if you can’t afford them?) abortion rates will not go down, but will shoot up the opposite direction: up. Cutting federal funds for abstinence-only sex education programs is NOT a step towards reducing the number of abortions in this country (it’s a step in the other direction). Cutting federal funds for abstinence-only sex education programs is NOT a step towards “common ground” (it’s an entrenchment of the same pro-ABORTION politics Obama has been lobbying for since he began campaigning).

The appeal and pleas for “common ground” and “dialogue” during his Notre [Sh]ame commencement speech were empty promises dressed in fancy rhetoric (which obviously fooled more than a few people).

More junk from Dan Brown

This Friday the movie release of Dan Brown’s other poorly researched book “Angels & Demons” hits theaters. Though I am loathe to give this more attention than it needs, I think there is an obligation to correct the blatant lies this work purports as truth.

Firstly, and more concerning than any idea that a Pope would engage in sinful behavior, is the idea that there is a divorce between faith and science– that the Catholic Church is somehow hostile to science. This is simply untrue. Although with the sketchy “theories” floating around as scientific fact today, it’s not hard to see where one might get that impression. But that’s the fault of modern scientists pushing an agenda rather than seeking to truly understand the world.

The Church loves science, and there is (and can be) no hostile relation between faith and science– by which most people aim at understanding as reason. When we paint science as reasonable, we paint faith as unreasonable. Faith is a comforting fairy tale, they say, and reason is the mature real world understanding. But this is simply a false dichotomy. Faith and reason is not an either/or situation. Yes, faith is beyond that natural (i.e., faith is supernatural); but faith does not violate reason. To use a pedantic analogy: it is not unreasonable for me to believe that my car stays parked in the parking lot while I’m shopping in the store and can’t see it. Barring some abnormal occurrence like someone stealing my car or a tornado comes by and takes my car three towns over, my car will indeed still be in the parking lot even when I can’t see it. This would not be considered an unreasonable belief– in fact, most people might suggest it would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

Now, I do grant that the belief of religious faith is a bit different. But not entirely. God’s existence is something the Catholic Church has taught can be known by the light of natural reason. We did not need God to tell us that He exists. But matters of faith like the Incarnation, that God is three persons, one God are things we could not have figured out had God not revealed them to us. This kind of faith is not simply believing something exists even when I’m not looking at it, but is a kind of belief in the testimony of others alongside recognition that God is not (and cannot be) a deceiver by His very nature.

Some reading recommendations:

Pope John Paul II’s “Fides et Ratio” (“On the Relationship Between Faith & Reason”)

Answering Angels & Demons by Mark Shea (free download from Ascension Press)

Angels & Devils by Joan Carroll Cruz