The Hypocrisy of the Intolerant Left Revealed Yet Again

Dan Savage who was speaking about bullying goes into a rant against Christians and how intolerant of them we must all be.  Yeah that makes sense.  What in the world is an anti-bullying speaker doing taking stage to do the very thing he is there to decry?  Answer, he doesn't believe in peace, he believes in intolerance while simultaneously preaching against intolerance.  The classic wolf in sheep's clothing.  Christ came to abolish slavery and institute a new covenant that did away with all those things that you chose to cherry pick out of the Old Testament and use as a cudgel against all Christians.  He also warned us to watch for wolves in sheep's clothing.  For video: here.

Catholic News Service Article: "New generation, old rite: the enduring appeal of Catholic tradition"

The article and video bring out these major points:

• Classical liturgical music has an "uplifting, energizing effect, it really moves people to prayer," he says. "Both Gregorian chant and polyphony highlight the texts of the liturgy. When you're listening to them, you meditate on the words and internalize their meaning."

• A large segment of Father Kramer's flock is people born decades after the Tridentine Mass ceased to be the norm. He says they are frequently drawn by the older liturgy's emphasis on the sacrificial dimension, which makes it "more obvious that Christ is pouring out his blood for the forgiveness of sins."

• Younger people also are "more sophisticated than they used to be, and they're looking for something at a higher level," Father Kramer says. "And I think that is connected with finding the great tradition and richness of the last 2,000 years."

• The Tridentine Mass is a link to the church's vast treasures of art, architecture, literature and music. "These are all things that we need to rediscover," Father Kramer says. "No other institution has anything like it."

• More specifically, he says, the liturgy offers an education in the faith itself.  "The Latin of the old Mass helps the priest and the laity understand a lot more about the theology of the church right back to the third century, because a lot of the terminology is in Latin," Father Kramer says. "These are terms that are coming from the ancient world and that in the intervening centuries have accrued other (meanings) and have been enriched as they've gone along."

• Familiarity with the traditional liturgy can thus help the vast majority of Catholics who attend the ordinary form understand it better, Father Kramer says; and such exposure might also help priests who celebrate the newer liturgy to focus on its essential meaning.

• "In the old Mass the idea was that the personality of the priest should disappear and that the Mass would have an objective value," he says. "The new Mass could learn something from that principle ... that it's not about the priest, it's about Christ the priest and the priest acting in his stead."

• "The church can't have a council that contradicts previous councils. That just can't happen in Catholicism. One mustn't come to the documents with a hostility but rather with a mind that wants to see them as they relate to the general tradition."

Obama's HHS "Compromise" Just Adds Insult to Injury

Obama's "diffusing" of the contraception issue is no compromise at all.

First he arrogantly mandated that Catholic hospitals provide their employees birth control and abortion pills. The only acknowledgement to Catholics was that they had "one year to comply with the mandate." How generous of them.

Now, since only because it's an election year, Obama felt the heat from groups seeing his bald faced attack on the First Amendment which guarantees the "free exercise of religion" and used his unwavering guile to craft a cynical "compromise." The compromise is this: that Catholic institutions, instead of directly giving their employees contraceptives and abortion pills themselves, must now instead purchase the plan - that the Catholic institutions must buy - that deliver the contraceptives for free. How clever. However it's a backdoor trick to get the Church to pay for the contraceptives without a paper trail. It's pure legalese - from the lawyer Obama. The only reason Obama is doing this is to avoid a legal paper trail leading back to the Catholic Church which would in turn "free him" from being accused of violating the First Amendment.

However Obama is just adding insult to injury. It’s like telling a religious organization in 1850 that everybody, including them, must provide your employees with a slave because “everybody is entitled to free labor.” Then the religious organization says, “no, not us” only to have the government retort that “okay, then you must pay for the slave trading costs, but not directly provide the slaves yourselves.”

Is that just? No.

About 100 years ago the Mexican Government began writing into law provisions that suppressed the practice of Catholicism. It began with one Constitutional inclusion. We can now see it beginning to unfurl today in America with Obama's latest legal provision forcing Catholic institutions to embrace his secular ideas and reject Catholic Church Teachings. The chronology of events leading to the open cold blooded murder of Catholics by the Mexican Government is captured hereand summarized below:

Calling themselves the 'Constitutionalists', the secular party that won election claimed "that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action."

But as their power grew and so their arrogance, they began to take more bold measures to suppress Catholicism:

"Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and institutes were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, "religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property." Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally, in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution contributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state."

To repeat:

"all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property."

Is this much different under Obama? No. It is exactly the Obama Doctrine. We all recall hearing the media ask about and discuss "the Bush doctrine". Even Charlie Gibson belittled Sarah Palin for not immediately knowing "the Bush doctrine". But while the media never asks anybody, anybody at all, the question, "what is the Obama doctrine?", then Obama feels he has free space to implement his radical doctrines and agendas that systematically strip America of its freedoms.

Pelosi and Obama Ushering in the Persecution of Catholics

Like corrupt governments of old and banana republics of today, the Obama administration is starting to push around religion. And surprisingly, Roman Catholics are the ones both behind it and backing it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, announced the provision as part of Obamacare. Then, Nancy Pelosi, the self-acclaimed queen of Catholic political culture, decided to join the suppression of the free practice of the faith and morals that Catholics are guaranteed in the First Amendment. According to a CNS article:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions."

About 100 years ago the Mexican Government began writing into law provisions that suppressed the practice of Catholicism. It began with one Constitutional inclusion. We can now see it beginning to unfurl today in America with Obama's latest legal provision forcing Catholic institutions to embrace his secular ideas and reject Catholic Church Teachings. The chronology of events leading to the open cold blooded murder of Catholics by the Mexican Government is captured here and summarized below:

Calling themselves the 'Constitutionalists', the secular party that won election claimed "that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action."

But as their power grew and so their arrogance, they began to take more bold measures to suppress Catholicism:

"Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and institutes were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, "religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property." Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally, in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution contributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state."

To repeat:

" . . . Article 3 prohibited the Church from engaging in primary education; Article 5 outlawed monastic orders; Article 24 forbade public worship outside the confines of churches; and Article 27 placed restrictions on the right of religious organizations to hold property. Most obnoxious to Catholics was Article 130, which deprived clergy members of basic political rights."

One more time:

"all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property."

The early 20th century president of Mexico Madera lured support by making grand promises of reform and prosperity - none of which ever came. According to Wikipedia: "Madero's vague promises of agrarian reforms attracted many of the peasants throughout Mexico."

The Mexican Government became even more corrupt when in Plutarco Calles took power:

"For eight years after these provisions were instituted, they were not rigorously enforced by the Mexican government. This changed in 1926 when Plutarco Elías Calles reinforced laws to decrease clerical power. In June 1926, Calles recognized a decree often referred to as “Calles Law.” Under this provision, Article 130 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution was re-established. Church officials were upset by the suddenness of Calles’ decision. The regulation, which annoyed the Catholic Church, was Article 19, which decreed the compulsory registration of the clergy, for it allowed the Government to hand over churches."

So do we ask ourselves, are we repeating history here in the United States of America, the land of the free that formed its First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights which guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

or we remain steadfast that our Bill of Rights applies to all American citizens in their religious practice? Does America really want to look like early 20th century Mexico, or like the land of the free that it was framed to become and remain?

Quotes to Live By

"You either belong entirely to the world, or entirely to God" - St. John Vianney"

"The greatest saints avoided the company of men as much as they could and chose to live to God in secret." - The Imitation of Christ Ch. 20 (The Love of Solitude and Silence)

"Learn now to die to the world that then you may begin to live with Christ." - Romans 6:8

"You cannot be half a saint; you must be a whole saint or no saint at all." -St. Therese of Lisieux

"Whosoever, therefore, aims at arriving at interior and spiritual things, must, with Jesus, go aside from the crowd." - John 5:13

"I know no surer way to discover if a person belongs to God than by finding out if he loves saying the Hail Mary and the Rosary" --St. Louis de Montfort.

"Some people are so foolish that they think they can go through life without the help of the Blessed Mother. Love the Madonna and pray the rosary, for her rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today. All graces given by God pass through the Blessed Mother" --St. Padre Pio.

"Keep yourself as a pilgrim and a stranger upon earth to whom the affairs of this world not in the least belong." - 1 Peter 2:11

"Our hearts were made for You, O Lord, and they are restless until they rest in you."
-St. Augustine of Hippo

"Since Christ Himself has said, "This is My Body" who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" -St. Cyril of Jerusalem

"Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you." -St. Augustine

"They renounced all riches, dignities, honors, friends, and kindred; they desired to have nothing of this world; they scarcely allowed themselves the necessities of life; serving the body, even in necessity, was irksome to them . . . They were strangers to the world, but near and familiar friends to God." - The Imitation of Christ Ch. 18 (The Examples of the Holy Fathers)

May 21 End of the World? "Oh wait no, I meant October 21"

So the deception continues from flashy California's Protestant Ministries. So May 21st came and went without so much as a hiccup. So now Protestant Minister Camping has decided that the end of the world really wasn't May 21st, but October 21st. Never mind that his same prediction back in 1994 failed miserably, now he wants to take a third wild swing and strike himself out. So when October 21st comes and goes and Camping has 3 strikes to his count - can we then finally dispense with the Protestant B.S. artistry of privately interpreting the bible, please?

The Church wrote and approved the bible. As author of the Bible, Holy Mother Church alone has rights to interpret the sacred texts, not some self-aggrandized bible thumpin' prima donna from California (of all places). The Church in Rome, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church alone interprets the Bible. Private interpretation of the Bible has gotten the world in more trouble than anything in its history.

From the radical fragmentation of Christianity - thanks to one sole private interpreting Augustinian monk named Martin Luther to the suicide pact cults who interpret the end in a remote compound, to Camping's failed predictions. And for what? Attention? God only knows. But once again, here is one more reason to trust in the One Church that Christ founded upon the Apostles: the Holy Roman Catholic Church - the world's sole authority of the Bible. We need to all remember that the Church is mother of the Bible not the other way around.

May 21 End of the World? - Negative

"Oopsies!"

. . . as protestant doomsdayer broadcast ministries founder Harold Camping would say, along with his gullible followers. By choosing their own private interpretation of the Bible instead of the Church's interpretation, doomsdayers like these time and time again will continue to have pie on their face by making outrageous claims that not even the Magisterium would make. The Church is Mother of the Bible and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church alone has rights to interpret the Bible because Holy Mother Church alone is its sole author. Period. The bible is not open to private interpretation. Hopefully this painful lesson will bring many back to the One Fold whose founder, Jesus Christ entrusted to His Apostles.