Attention, Catholics In MD/DC Area - Especially Knights Of Columbus! Action Needed Now!

We've been looking with dismay these past few days upon the Obergefell v Hodges decision that has thrust #mowwidge down the collective throat of this country.  While it seems all we can do is pray (and we must!) we must also act.  The maxim "think globally and act locally" has relevance in regard to this national disgrace, particularly to us in the MD-DC area.

Two weeks ago I posted about a "possible gay attack" looming upon a Silver Spring Knights of Columbus council.  During the time between then and now I've been making inquiries and gathering information.  Indeed the council in question is the Rosensteel Council, just off Georgia Avenue, a block or two north of the beltway.  The party is scheduled for Saturday August 8, from 6p to midnight in the ballroom on the main level.

As I mentioned in my original post, I highly commend Ultrasound DeeJays for remaining true to their Christian principles: principles that are stated quite clearly on their website and that had to have been noticed by the family as they tried to engage the deejays.  The deejays were a bit more astute in their "due diligence" than was Rosensteel.  Still, hoping that Rosensteel was innocently unaware of the nature of this family before booking the event, I called the Grand Knight to alert him.  While I appreciate his return call, he did treat my concerns a bit dismissively.  I learned from another knight of that council that this event is curiously absent from their calendar: indicating that they are aware of the inherent controversy surrounding this party.

Granted, it is a birthday party.  On one hand, the scandal does not arise to the level as it would had this been a "wedding" reception to celebrate a #mowwidge.  However, one can imagine that there will be dancing and, uh, "public displays of affection" shall we say.  That this will happen on grounds that are at the service of the Catholic Church is disappointing beyond telling.

This council has historically been of great service to the pro-life movement over these past few decades.  I would suspect that the vast majority of the knights of this council, faithful Catholics, are unaware of what is scheduled to transpire on August 8.  They need to be made aware of what is happening at their council and with their dues money.

Here is a link to the council's latest newsletter.  Should this link become "broken", please advise me via comments.  I downloaded it and can make it available elsewhere should the need arise.  On page 2 the officers are listed along with their contact information.  Please ask them what they were thiniking about this event; by now they must be aware.  This council is being targeted, just as the deejays were.  Not for one second do I believe that it is a coincidence that this council was solicited for their ballroom and Christian deejays were asked to cater this event, not in light of the Indiana fiasco and other occurrences over the past few months.

Those calling should ask them how they intend to prevent future occurrences (something that all KofC councils should be pondering).  There will be more such incidents as the gays are now licking their chops after the Supreme Court debacle on June 28th.  It's way past time to get prepared.

Please pass this information on to all knights that you know and ask them to lend their voices.  We all must speak out, not just a few of us.

Apologies To The Archdiocese Of Washington

In my post yesterday, I intimated that the reaction of the Archdiocese of Washington to the #mowwidge ruling was the most disgraceful that I read.  I must now correct that impression.  As unimpressive as Cardinal Wuerl's statement is, it's a few steps above the one I just saw from Archbishop Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago.  Here it is, in all its putrid equivocation.

The court redefined nothing.  All it did was perpetuate a lie, a pretense at marriage.  That's why I'm calling it #mowwidge.  When our bishops start condemning this crap from hell and call it what it is, perhaps then we'll see this culture restored.

#mowwidge And Civil Disobedience

First let me explain the brand-new hashtag that I just concocted.  The term "gay marriage" is a farce, for there is no such thing.  God Himself has designed and defined marriage to be a life-long exclusive commitment between one man and one woman, ordered for their sanctification and the procreation and education of children.  That's it, nothing else.  I refuse to use the term "gay marriage" for I will not dignify mortal sin by calling it "marriage".  Therefore I will call their diabolical pretense "mowwidge".  While it may seem like mockery, I submit to my readers that what the gay progressives have been attempting all along is a mockery of marriage and by extension, the God Who created marriage.  Now how did I come up with this term?  Well, anyone who saw the movie "Princess Bride" will recall the character to the leftt, and the first word out of his mouth during the wedding scene.  Hence the hashtag #mowwidge!

At Mass today, our pastor made plain that we might have to engage in civil disobedience for we cannot obey laws that run counter to God's laws.  He cited Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" that outlined King's own thoughts and experiences with civil disobedience as he fought unjust discrimination laws in the early 1960s.  As you read the letter, you'll note that he invoked both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo, both Doctors of the Church.

Other Christian leaders are also considering civil disobedience.  Reverend Bill Owens, president and founder of Coalition of African-American Pastors, said on Tuesday (prior to the Obergefell v Hodges ruling ) told Breitbart News that should the ruling happen (and it did), he envisioned "another civil rights movement of Christians of various churches and massive civil disobedience."  Read the article.

IMHO, he's spot-on correct.  Until we elect leaders with firm moral convictions and spinal fortitude, we'll have no alternative.  I'll now link to some helpful tips from the American Family Association and Alliance Defending Freedom.  There are measures that can be taken to stave off attacks from the get-go.  In any event, we must stand firm and pray to Our Lord for strength and guidance.

Are We Cooperating With Mortal Sin?

At the bottom of my previous post, I included a video to display common reactions of many good people who may not themselves be embroiled in the mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  I don't believe I did justice to the subject matter of that video and will now try to rectify that problem.

Owing to the lousy catechesis that many of us (myself included) received as a result of the misapplications of Vatican II, we can be ignorant of the ramifications of cooperating with sin.  Often enough, such cooperation is its own mortal sin.

There are those Catholics who, while appreciating the pain that homosexuals feel, erroneously try to alleviate it by deluding themselves (and their friends) into believing that homosexuality is not an intrinsic disorder but something to be acted upon.  They condone the conduct, not accepting that they will compound the misery - most especially the misery of hell - of their friends.

There are some Catholics who outright facilitate and applaud homosexual conduct.  We saw that on Friday, when "katholyc" Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion to Obergefell v Hodges and was joined by fellow "katholyc" Sonia Sotomayor.  Obviously these two, by their significant actions, have jeopardized their souls.  Thousands, though, join them.

The video lists nine ways in which cooperation with sin often happens.  Pay particular attention to # 5  (defense of evil done) and # 8 (praise).  Many progressive katholycs engage in these with regards to their shilling for "gay rights" (think New Ways Ministry).  Other Catholics, though, - including faithful Catholics - plunge head-on into # 9 (silence).  How long will you remain stuck in that?

Reactions To Obergefell V Hodges

Numerous entities have reacted and posted their statements in regards to the Court's disgraceful obeisance to sodomite perversion, calling it "marriage".  I'll comment on a smattering of them.  First, I'll link to the official text of the opinion.  Please notice something on page 3 of the opinion written by "katholyc" Anthony Kennedy.  He cites "four principles" to support sodomite "marriage", each accompanied by a prior decision as precedent.  One "principle" is buttressed by Griswold v Connecticut.  It should sound familiar to all Catholics who've been fighting these culture wars.  This is the 1965 decision that paved the way for married couples in the U.S. to utilize contraception.  Prior to that, US society recognized the deadly consequences of contraception.  This case also provided support for the horrid Roe v Wade  decision.  But now let's get back to the reactions to Obergefell v Hodges.

We'll start with the Archdiocese of Washington.  Recalling the archdiocese's disgraceful treatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo when the latter upheld Christ's teachings with regard to blatant mortal sin and Holy Communion, it's no surprise that they produced this milquetoast drivel.  Regarding sodomy, the diocese says, "while this is not the Church's understanding of marriage, it is a definition confirmed by the Court".  First, what the Church embraces is not mere "understanding" but the eternal, immutable truths taught by the One True God since the beginning of human existence.  Moreover, the Court confirmed nothing.  It merely joined in the gay-nazis' pretense and is cramming their collective sin down the throats of the entire nation.  The statement concludes with a (cough!) firm, decisive promise to deal as courageous Catholics with the conflicts that will arise. Just kidding!  No such luck!  They'll "evaluate..on a case-by-case basis" how they'll deal with such matters.

Fortunately not all US dioceses are manned by equivocating wimps.  Bishop Michael Jarrell of the Diocese of Lafeyette (Louisiana) condemned the court's attempt to usurp God's prerogatives regarding marriage.  He instructed Catholics in government roles to engage in civil disobedience if they were required to facilitate sodomy.  He also forbade his clergy from engaging in marriage mockery and forbade the usage of Catholic property for usage of the same.  Moreover, he instructed Catholics not to attend such bastardizations of marriage.

Local governments have also taken action.  Several counties in Alabama have opted to cease the issuance of marriage licenses in the wake of this ruling.  The state of Mississippi may follow suit.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott has directed his agencies to protect the religious freedoms of Texans, effectively shutting down state-recognized sodomy in his state.  Expect more to follow.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, in the wake of yesterday's ruling, stated that there should be "impeachment" of at least the five justices who ruled for sodomy.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opnion (see link in first paragraph, scroll to page 69), indicates that he might be inclined to agree.

Now, dear readers, what will your reaction be?  We cannot shrug this off, for now our nation has been further shoved down into an abyss of immorality and barbarism.  We have a responsibility to speak out, no matter the costs.  If we remain silent, we risk being in cooperation with sin.

Today Is Probably America's Darkest Day Since Roe V Wade

Today the United States of America disgraced itself almost beyond recognition and (I pray not!) perhaps beyond repair with today's Supreme Court ruling in the Obergefell v Hodges ruling.  In a 5-4 ruling, they basically mandated that so-called "gay marriage" must be recognized by all 50 states.  In other words, they attempted to redefine marriage to mean something other than what God intended.  The very first line of the US Declaration of Independence invokes "the laws of nature and nature's God".  Now the United States Supreme Court has set itself - once again - above God and His immutable laws.

An earlier occasion, of course, was the Roe v Wade decision of 1973.  At that time, the Court decreed that the individual states did not have the ability to protect unborn babies from the barbaric practice of abortion.  42 years later, this nation is awash in the blood of over 60 million murdered babies - blood that is on our hands as a nation.  Now, once again, we have made a paradigm leap into godlessness and barbarism.

Ladies and gentlemen, both these ills (and many more) are the direct result of rejecting God's teachings regarding marriage, sexuality and family life as found in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.  Much of that rejection came from those who called themselves Catholics - including clergy.  A careful reading of Humanae Vitae reveals a list of all the evils that would befall society if contraception were accepted.  As I read through that list, it's hard to realize that this was written almost 50 years ago; it could have been written 5 years ago, given its accuracy.

Much of the blame for the degradation of society, particularly western culture, can be laid squarely at the feet of Catholic leaders.  Instead of sticking to their God-given mission of saving souls, that is, preaching the truths of faith and morals, they've been scurrying about and spreading tripe about "social justice".  To fund all their "social justice" hogwash, they silenced themselves regarding morals in order to curry the favors of those who are wealthy and influential.   Now we all reap the bitter fruit of their betrayal of the Faith.

Before I was able to sit down and compose this post, I read other Catholic commentary on today's unmitigated disaster.  Some of the commentary was written by well-meaning and very faithful Catholics with the laudable but mistaken intention of trying to soften the blow to us.  One went so far as to opine that "this is not a time for mourning".  I respectfully disagree.  The book of Joel does call for "weeping, fasting and mourning" as the prophet spoke of response to the sins of a nation.  We received a wake-up call today - at least I hope we have.  These calls can - and should - leave us shocked and disturbed and even angry.  The real question is, "will we allow our profound sorrow to finally motivate us into decisive prayer and action"?  That question remains to be answered by each and every one of us.

I will say this much for some hope in the face of this calamity.  Whereas the Roe v Wade vote was a 7-2 vote, this was 5-4; had it not been for Kennedy's faulty "katholycism" this vote might have been a narrow victory.  Moreover, when Roe v Wade happened, I don't recall it garnering as much outrage as this vote has.  Granted, I was in high school when Roe happened and I do think at the time news of Lyndon Johnson's death on the same day overshadowed the news of the vote, and there was no internet in 1973, but still very few noticed Roe v Wade when it happened.  Now we know and we are able to mobilize.

As our Catholic leaders helped to grease the skids to national perdition over these past few decades, theirs' is the responsibility to lead the way to repentance and restoration.  They must start by devoting themselves to proclaiming God's teaching regarding marriage, sexuality and family life - starting with the Sunday sermons.  When did you last hear a Sunday homily that stated the truth that the usage of contraception is mortally sinful?  I can't remember, either.  They need to start obeying Canon 915 - that means you, Cardinals Dolan and Wuerl!

Meanwhile we are not going to cease speaking out and defending the teachings of Jesus Christ, tyrannical court ruling notwithstanding.

The Rot Inside The Church That Paved The Way For Laudato Si

An organization called America's Survival interviewed Michael Hichborn shortly before Laudato Si was officially released.  He revealed quite a few details on how pervasive the progressive rot is inside the Vatican - all the way to the top.  Of course he touches upon the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and all the other corruption that make up the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Take note especially of how John Carr, former director of "social justice" at the USCCB, tried to bribe Hichborn into silence about all that he uncovered.

Towards the end, Hichborn noted that CCHD is still corrupt and that we should not contribute.  I agree.  On that note, I've a word for the Archdiocese of Washington.  Most dioceses hold their CCHD collections in November.  For several years now, the ADW has held its collection in August; this year it'll be during the Aug 8-9 weekend.  Moreover, they've tried to disguise it by stating that it's the "Catholic Communications and Human Development" collection.  Drop not one red penny into that.  I'll have more on this later.  Now the video.

Laudato Si And Climate Confusion

In today's Mic'd Up from Church Militant TV, Michael Voris interviews three guests to comment on the junk science that is the basis of Laudato Si.  Two of them are Lord Christopher Monckton and Michael Hichborn.  Pay close attention to all of them, but note most carefully the indignity that Monckton endured at the hands of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because he doesn't swill the "climate change" kool-aid.  Here's the link.

By the way - look up some words and phrases in Laudato Si.  It's quite telling.

• Try "sustainable" (for "sustainable development).  I suggest just that one word for what you will see is an attempt to conceal the phrase by plopping other words: namely "sustainable and integral development", found in paragraph 13.  We also see "sustainable human development" in paragraph 18.  The simple phrase occurs by itself in paragraph 52.  Now in paragraph 61, we see that "the present world system ...is unsustainable".  See how the idea of a "new world order" is being insinuated?  There are synonyms, such as "sustainable progress" in paragraph 114.  The phrase by itself occurs again in paragraph 159.  We see it again in paragraph 167 as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit is lauded, and again in paragraph 169 as scientists such as Lord Monckton and others are mocked.  That word again is found in paragraphs 191 and 192; read those paragraphs.  So the phrase "sustainable development" is being repeated, and perhaps for a purpose.  Consider that in April the Pontifical Academy of Sciences hosted a "sustainable development" symposium (from which they tried to exclude Monckton).  From that meeting came a document that overtly called for population control.  See the quote in my linked article.  There's method to the madness, it seems.
• Let's look at "humanism".  I touched upon the atheistic underpinnings of that term a few days ago.  Just google "American Humanist Association" and look at the manifestos.  In this document, the word occurs in paragraphs 141 and 180.
• Try looking up "regulat".  I suggest that spelling so you can see the root word in both "noun" and "adjective" permutations.  Interesting?

The authors were not at all subtle about their shilling for one-world-government in Laudato Si.  In the video, suggestions are made that the pope was "duped".  I think that's unreasonable.  Should we really believe that the leader of the Church, who was a bishop in a major city, is really such an imbecilic dunce that he could be led by the nose like that?  I'm grateful that Monckton ended his portion of the interview as he did.

From The Piled High And Deep Department - Synod Instrumentum Laboris Is Out

Still reeling from the stench of Laudato Si, we are now confronted with the working document that will guide the Ordinary Synod on the Family next October.  All reports so far confirm that the "Kasper proposal" regarding Holy Communion for those in adultery remains in place.  According to Catholic News Agency, some synod fathers "have asked that each individual case be examined, and that couples in special circumstances be allowed to receive the Eucharist after completing a journey of penance and reconciliation guided by the local bishop."

Shall we unpack this glop?  Firstly if one talks about "penance and reconciliation", there must be a cessation of the sinful situation; that is, the adulterers must separate.  Else there is no real penance and/or reconciliation: just a cheap, sentimental facade that will garner no one any real spiritual benefit.  In fact, those engaged in the fake "penance" while continuing in adultery will merely have their consciences numbed as they continue spiraling to eternal damnation.

From News.va we read, "the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops noted that it makes reference to the family and ecclesial accompaniment, the streamlining of procedures for causes for annulment, the integration of faithful in irregular situations, the eventual introduction of a penitential route, the pastoral problems regarding mixed marriages and disparities of worship, as well as questions related to responsible procreation, reduction of births, adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end, and education of future generations."  The general secretary of the synod is Cardinal Baldisseri.  But consider these phrases: responsible procreation?  Reduction of births?  What is that about?  Do we hear echoes of Laudato Si here?  Do we see the tentacles of the Sachs-Schnellnhuber squid insinuating themselves into this upcoming sin-nod?

When the English is online I'll post it.  As it stands now, we already have harbingers of a mess to come this October.

Cardinal Wuerl Attempts Damage-Control For Laudato Si

As many know, yesterday Fox News interviewed Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.  Chris Wallace conducted the interview and I post it below.  I have some comments and they won't necessarily occur in order, as they appear on the clip.

First the two discussed comments made by Jeb Bush regarding "getting policy from the bishops".  The cardinal seemed to intimate that Laudato Si was not putting forth policy but merely the moral framework.  As I read Laudato Si, I most certainly do see policy being put forth.  We see that quite explicityly in paragraph 173, where the pope is suggesting the use of "global regulatory norms".  Paragraph 175 goes on to say that there should be "organized international institutions..empowered to impose sanctions."  The pope is flat out calling for a surrender of national sovereignity in favor of one-world government.  I call that "setting forth policy" as opposed to mere "moral frameworks".

They then turn their attention to criticisms leveled by Rush Limbaugh.  They played one snippit of his broadcast from June 16th.  To put that piece in context, I present to you the link to the entire transcript as it appears on Rush's website.  After listening to the clip, they chuckle and Wuerl says that in this country one can speak their mind even if "they don't have all the facts".  Well, not too many authentic facts will support the global warming hoax.  Quite a few scientists are sounding the alarm regarding that hoax.  For their troubles, they have found themselves shut out of any Vatican discussions regarding the encyclical.  From the Washington Post, we read "How Climate Change Doubters Lost A Papal Fight." As you read it, take note of the treatment meted out to Philippe de Larminet.  He wasn't the only one so marginalized.  So much for "all discussing this" and "coming to the table", when scientists who see through the global warming conundrum are excluded simply because they don't tow the progressive party line.  Indeed, they (and all people of common sense) are vilified as having "obstructionist attitudes" (see paragraph 14 of the encyclical).

Today Limbaugh voiced his reply to the interview and I now link to it.  The "lunatic" to whom Limbaugh refers is, I believe, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber.  Given what I said about the latter's theory about the "earth's maximum carrying capacity", the "lunatic" label is charitable.  Everything else that Limbaugh states, both about the interview and the encyclical, is spot on.  Now the clip:

Global Cooling! Global Warming! Climate Change! Whatever!

As you watch the conflicting lies in both these videos, your reaction might be the same as mine:
"Make up your damned minds, why don't you?"  As you recover from the insult to your intelligence that is offered by both these, I'd suggest you read this reaction from a real scientist to Laudato Si.

Laudato Si - READ IT!

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm reading on too many sites - from faithful Catholics - who, being understandably disgusted with Laudato Sii, are suggesting that others NOT read the encyclical.  One site owner went so far as to state that because he endured the reading of Laudato Sii and published his commentary, others need not "waste their time" in reading it for themselves.

BIG MISTAKE!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, the problems within our Church can be blamed (in part) on faithful Catholics who have not been diligent in doing their research and are content to let others do "the heavy lifting" and thinking for them.  They are culpable of grave negligence and the suggestion to eschew the encyclical only affirm others in being lax and non-vigilant.

Look, I know the encyclical is full of progressivism and humanism.  I know it can be exasperating to read such pig-slop.  I know there can be temptations to anger and frustrations.  SO WHAT??  Read it anyway!  Each and everyone of us (that means YOU, dear reader!) has a solemn responsibility to understand what is happening within our Church and our civilization.  We cannot slough our personal responsibiity onto others.  If you do, just what do you expect to give as an answer when you face Our Lord at the moment of your death?

Here's the link.  Please start reading it NOW!

Laudato Si - Seamless Garment And Humanism

I'm still slogging through the mess known as Laudato Sii and am happy to refer to you some excellent commentary by fellow Catholic writers.  From the Remnant Newspaper, we have from Chris Jackson "Why I'm Disregarding Laudato Si And Why You Should Too".  I do believe that all should take the time and trouble to read it for ourselves (I linked to the English translation yesterday), if only to be able to discuss it intelligently to those who might be so confused as to put it on a par with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  Perhaps we might be able to work off a little time from Purgatory by subjecting ourselves to the obvious mortification - to think that a pontiff could vomit forth such bile.

He gives the paragraph numbers for the snippets that he cites so that the incredulous can see the crap for themselves.  I'll interject a few of my own observations to date.  In paragraph 8, just before he sneaks in the "seamless garment" phrase, we have a quote from Patriarch Bartholomew opining that when we "cause changes in the climate..strip the earth of its forests..we sin against God."  Leaving alone (for now) that we are under no obligation whatsoever to take seriously the bloviations of a non-Catholic, we really can breathe a sigh of relief for we are not "causing changes in the climate" nor are we "stripping the earth of its forests".

Like Jackson, I too have noticed the emphasis on "feeling".  Try this fun exercise.  Copy and paste the encyclical into a Word document (as I did).  Do a word search on "feel".  Rather revelatory, isn't it?  But if any envirowhackos insist on feeling guilt for the "stripping of forests", I present to you (as did Jackson), an aide to help you express your feelings of remorse.  The video below was taken several years ago, as a loony bunch calling themselves "Earth First" had a little sob-session over some trees.  And yes, they were serious!



As I watched the video, I expressed my feelings (that word again!) of mirth and comedy.  In other words, I laughed until tears came from my eyes!

Here's another curious result from the word-search feature.  Try looking up "humanism".  We know what that is, right?  If not, examine the website of the American Humanist Association and read the various manifestos.  They are quite up front about their atheism and anti-life agendas. It's interesting how these words such as "humanism", "seamless garment", etc are slyly insinuated into this document so that they could worm their way into our thinking.

As I was looking into my post archives just now, I was reminded that last September, some progressives conducted a "People's Climate March" in New York City, with Cardinal Dolan sounding the trumpets for it.  Look at the attendees, and notice how fossil fuels were demonized - as they are in Laudato Si.  To me, it sounds like that march and this encyclical received input from the same sources.

I won't disregard Laudato Si, for I believe it to be a snake in the grass that must be watched.

Laudato Si Is Here And It Is A Stinker

The much dreaded awaited encyclical is here.  The English version is on the Vatican website and I am in the process of wading through the mess.  Many of my colleagues were awaiting this with apprehension.  So far the encyclical is living down to all expectations.  Oh yes, there are the admonitions against abortion as one would hope in a Catholic document.  But as Voice of the Family notes in their statement, there is no such admonition against contraception.  In fact, I pulled the thing into Word and did a search for "contraception" - not one mention!

Michael Voris released a preliminary statement today and noted correctly that the science behind this thing - and it's splattered all throughout the thing as though it were Holy Writ - is by no means settled science.  Because the encyclical does not touch on either faith or morals, it does not bind the consciences of Catholics; Voris reminded us all of that.  In fact, Voris rightly points out the deadly results that would occur if the political and scientific policies suggested by the encyclical were to be implemented.

I do have one disagreement with Voris.  At 3:54 in the video, he seems to insinuate that Pope Francis, "whose good and kind nature could possibly, easily be taken advantage of by less scrupulous men", is somehow exhonorated from any responsibility for this encyclical.  No. This can't be blamed on "evil boogeymen who are leading him astray". The pope owns what he says and does. How long was he bishop and cardinal? He's been around the block too many times for us to believe that he's just a lovable, naive little bumpkin. Think on this: if he truly is so simplistic and gullible as to allow himself to be manipulated in such a manner, what business does he have leading the Church?  At best, the view of the pope being a naive "nice guy" is actually quite condescending.  The responsibility for this disastrous encyclical lies squarely on the shoulders of the pope.  There's no way one can put lipstick on that pig.

If Personnel Is Policy, We Have Glaring Indications Of Dangerous Vatican Policy

Sandro Magister has done the Catholic world immense service by exposing the progressive machinations within the Vatican, particularly with its conduct during last October's sin-nod.  Eponymous Flower has more detail on Magister's service to truth.  Most recently he published a leaked version of the Laudato Sii encyclical, which is scheduled to be released tomorrow.  Tancred also details how Magister's Vatican press credentials were immediately revoked.  Dare we opine that Father Lombardi's outrage is rather biased?

Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses.  Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican.  Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod?  How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris?  So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash).  To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins.  So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.

Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii.  Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion.  So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction?  We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.

Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  Yes, you read that correctly.  A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position.  If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!

As the saying goes, personnel is policy.  I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is.  And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events.  He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them.  Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.

More On The Leaked Encyclical And Silly Damage Control

There are further details about the release of the encyclical Laudato Sii that is set for this coming Thursday.  It appears that four individuals are slated to help roll this thing out.  One of them is Professor Joachim Schnellnhuber.  I wrote about him this past Saturday; he's the charming individual who thinks "global warming" is the result of too many people on this planet - 6 billion too many, to be precise.   Now we learn that the fourth individual is (drum roll!) Carolyn Woo, president of Catholic Relief Services.  The hyperlink on the CRS name will take you to posts detailing the myriad of ways in which CRS is acting in deliberate and direct violation of Catholic teaching on life, marriage and sexuality.  Given that CRS has been distributing abortifacients and contraceptives in third-world countries, Woo and Schnellnhuber seem to be of like mind when it comes to eliminating people from this planet.  In a saner time, these individuals would not be assisting in the roll-out of a papal encyclical.

On another related matter, we know that the encyclical was leaked, with all sorts of details released that further illustrate the thinking of progressives that skulk in the corridors of the Vatican.  Besides what I cited yesterday, there are calls for "wealth redistribution" (by whom, one might ask!) to combat global warming, quotes by Teilhard de Chardin and Muslim leaders, etc.  The Pollyanna Damage Control Squad immediately jumped into full alert.  They blame these statements on the fact that what was released was a draft, not the final version.  Well, be that as it may, one might ask "how on earth did this rank heresy get so far as to be committed to a Vatican draft?"  The heresies - and heretics - should have been immediately jettisoned, not put to paper.  But of course we remember the relatio from October's sin-nod, so we know that heresy can well find its way to church documents these days.

Here are further details from GloriaTV.

Laudato Si Has Been Leaked

Reports state that L'Espresso has obtained a draft copy of the thing in the Italian language.  The Vatican "deplores" the leak, calling it a "heinous act".  That might be arguably true since it seems the entire document is itself a heinous act.

The English is not yet out (to the best of my knowledge) but here are some snippets.  Warning!  Some of these translations will have leftist leanings; of course, given what we know so far of this encyclical, these translations may well be accurate.  That doesn't mean they are factually correct, just accurate with regard to the text of the encyclical itself.  Here are some takes from National Journal; here's some from the Guardian and from the Independent.

As you read these things, it does seem that the pope has been hoodwinked into following the "man caused all this global warming and we will all die if we don't stop making carbon footprints right now!" hysteria.  At least I hope he's being hoodwinked and not deliberately colluding with the one-world-government progressives like Jeffrey Sachs.  At any rate, he has joined the progressive clamor for one-world government and population control.  Take a look at the second comment from the Independent site.  The commenter is calling on the church, in light of the Vatican's erroneous embrace of the junk science to "halt population growth" and even "reduce population"; as horrid as that sounds, it is a logical "next step" to the mental brain-rot that seems to underlie this encyclical.  As stated before, "population control" is explicitly called for by the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences.

We even see hints of earth-worship in this mess.  At the beginning, the thing says, "the earth is protesting for the wrong that we are doing to her, because of the irresponsible use and abuse of the goods that God has placed on her."  Time for some basic thoughts on what constitutes personhood.  The earth is a planet: an inanimate object.  Inanimate objects, not being persons, do not protest.  They are not sentient beings and they have neither voice nor rights.  Any inanimate object, in the singular, has the impersonal pronoun "it" assigned to it: not the personal pronouns "she" or "her".  Got that?  Sheesh!  One can wonder why he didn't go all the way and call the earth "gaia".

Elsewhere in the document the pope stated,  "in this encyclical, I especially propose to enter into discussion with everyone regarding our common home."  No he doesn't.  He means to use the weight of his holy office to cram a progressive agenda down our throats.  As for "discussion", see this post for treatment that the Vatican meted out to Lord Christopher Monckton and other scientists who oppose the "climate change" scam.  In that post, I voiced my opinion that the Holy Father, by throwing the weight of the papacy behind global warming, is prostituting the dignity and authority of the Chair of Peter.  I not only stand behind by statement, I reiterate it.

The Independent article erroneously claims that an encyclical is the "highest level of teaching document a pope can issue".  Not true.  It is not solemnly proclaimed dogma.  Mark Rhoads put out a nice summary of the differences; rather than reinvent the wheel I link to it now.  Not even the science that the pope seems to invoke is behind the wacky theory of global warming.  We are not bound in conscience to swallow that kool-aid in order to be a Catholic in good standing.  I for one won't.

Oh, by the way.  The leak of the encyclical was called a "heinous act".  Here's another one, with heinous acting to boot. It probably has the Vatican's "bimbo video" beat for cheesiness.  It's from an envirowhacko group in Brasil called Observatorio Do Clima.  As you watch this, bear in mind that they're serious and obviously think this tripe is the greatest thing since "life's bread".  If they think this waste of bandwidth is going to inspire anything but uproarious laughter, the delusion is worse than I imagined.  Here goes..

Vatican's Progressive Mafia Takes Out Another Good Bishop

I join with my blogging colleagues Les Femmes and Tenth Crusade in looking askance upon the forced resignation of Archbishop John Nienstedt as shepherd of Minneapolis/St. Paul.  I suppose we can now ask "who's next?"  We know the long knives are drawn for Archbishop Cordileone.  Or maybe it will be Vasa or Olmsted - or maybe Archbishop Athanasius Schneider or Cardinals Pell, Muller or Brandmuller.

Make no mistake about it.  The progressive mafia (hint: gang of nine and their allies) are mowing them down right and left.

Key Reason Why The United Nations Needs Laudato Si

The clip below is an interview given by Lord Christopher Monckton in July 2014.  In it he outlines some fallacies behind the global warming schtick.  He also makes plain that the schtick is, at heart, a pretense by which the United Nations and its cohorts can advance one-world government at the expense of human rights and liberties.

At the time this interview was given, there was very little indication that Pope Francis was going to jump into the fray on the side of one-world government.  Monckton did say that quite a few people are waking up to the farce that is global warming.  I've no doubt that the UN/Soros types understand this too, to their chagrin.  Is it any wonder, now, why they'd want the pope to lend the weight of the Catholic Church to their thinly-disguised seizure of power?

Montgomery County KofC Council Under Possible Gay Attack

My blogging colleague, An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic, put up a post today detailing another attempt by the gay nazis to cause Knights of Columbus to disregarding their Catholic identity.  In this incident, I said "cause" instead of "coerce" because I don't think this particular council was aware that the birthday party that is scheduled to occur in their hall in August was a gay birthday party.

The blogger learned of this event from an article in today's Washington Post.  Ironically the article itself was occasioned by the refusal of a disk jockey company to serve the party owing to the presense of gays.  On one hand, one could argue that a birthday party per se is not inherently a celebration of sodomy.  However, consider that the dj would be playng music to which gays would be dancing with each other, presumably in "romantic" fashions.  So yes - indirectly this event will be a celebration of the gay lifestyle.

The article mentions that this party is scheduled to be held in a Knights of Columbus hall in August, located in Silver Spirng, MD.  Like my fellow blogger, I know of only one council in Silver Spring: the Rosensteel council.  Knowing how this council has supported pro-life efforts in the past (just last month I attended the Gabriel Network gala hosted at Rosensteel), I cannot believe that they realized the true nature of this event.  Now we must pray that they stand by Catholic principles as opposed to political correctness "Montgomery County style".  Pray and support this council in this.

We must also pray and vocally support Ultrasound DeeJays.  I commend them highly for holding true to their Christian principles.

As I learn further details I will relate.  If my readers learn anything new, please advise me via the comments section.

Laudato Si - Addressing A Non-Existent Problem At Best, Advancing One-World Government At Worst

The pope's much ballyhooed encyclical is scheduled to be released next week.  There are reports that it has already been named "Laudato Si" (taken from St. Francis' "Canticle of the Sun").  We don't know what the thing contains, although the players involved give us a good idea of its main thrust.  As stated last month, this encyclical has significant progressive input, most notably from abortion advocate Jeffrey Sachs.  I link now to an anthology of posts that I've written that detail the malevolence of his beliefs.  The first post that appears when you click the link details the report that came from the meeting in late April hosted by both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  Please note the explicit call for population control.  Further down, you'll see a video by American Life League that exposes more of the harm wrought by Sachs.

A few weeks ago LifeSiteNews put forth a piece to ask why Sachs, given the information set forth by American Life League, would ever have been invited to the Vatican to offer input for an encyclical.  Given the fact that Sachs has been very up front about his advocacy for abortion, sterilization and contraception, we can only imagine that some at high levels of the Vatican share Sach's decidedly anti-life proclivities.  One such person might be Margaret Archer, who is president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  Here is her profile from the Vatican website.  In all the gobblygoop that she herself wrote, there are some key omissions.  Read through it and notice that you'll not find once the words "God", "Jesus Christ", "Catholic", "Church", "morals", nor any mentions of the key social encyclicals throughout the decades.  "Why is that important?" you may ask.  Well, I dunno!  I guess that because she's head of a Vatican function, we might have hoped for at least some perfunctory lip service to Catholic social teaching.  Indeed, I wonder if she's even Catholic.  At any rate, her unquestioning belief in the global warming canard is so staunch as to cause her to vent her spleen at questions posed by C-Fam.  Her rancor caused Austin Ruse to bestow upon her (and others) the title of "Bullies For Francis".

There is no doubt that Laudato Si will, at the very least, pave the way for progressives to exercise even more control over Church hierarchy and even world politics; both progressives and conservatives see that coming.  Canada Free Press highlights an article that Sachs wrote in America.  In that article, Sachs voiced his belief that the principles manifest in the US Declaration of Independence must surrender to world government.  The CFP article outlines how Sachs, Ki Moon and others hope that the encyclical will pave the way for one world government.  For an example of progressive gloating and cackling over this encycical, click here; at least they understand it to be revolutionary, even from their warped perspectives.  Aside: as much as he rants against "capitalism", socialism can only be worse.

The rollout of the encyclical next week will be accompanied by some speakers.  Among them is Professer John Schnellnhuber.  This founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research believes the "carrying capacity" of the planet for population is under 1 billion people.  In other words, according to this guy, there are 6 billion too many people currently inhabiting earth.  Just how he intends to correct what he believes to be a "problem" is anyone's nightmare.

Speaking of nightmares, who remembers this from 2008?  According to ABC back then, New York City was supposed to have been submerged by now (remember melting glaziers and drowning polar bears?)  Courtesy of Media Research Council, here's a memory refresher.  This encyclical, at best, will be addressing a non-existent problem.

Cardinal Dolan! Meet Bishop Slattery!

Too often it is necessary to expose the horrid misbehaviors of prelates such as Cardinal Dolan.  You might recall that he was Grand Marshall of New York's last St Patrick Day parade that featured a gay group strutting their perversion.  In light of that, it is refreshing to see a prelate taking his vocation as bishop seriously and standing up to mortal sin instead of celebrating it.

Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa OK recently pulled his diocese out of a partnership with the Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice after the latter became a sponsor of the city's "gay pride" parade there last Saturday.   He rightly concluded that continued alliance with this group would send a message of support for the gay agenda.  In his words, "I'm the bishop and I have to be the bishop."

Well said, Bishop Slattery!  Please stand strong and know that God will bless your fidelity.  Many of your brother prelates would do well to emulate your example!

Bishop Slattery is already catching politically-correct flak for his stance.  Please thank him and let him know you support him by visiting the diocesan website.

Corruption Infesting The Knights Of Columbus

I've written before about the various capitulations of the KofC to various aspects of the anti-God secular culture.  These sorry episodes seem to be increasing, particularly as the Knights fail to uphold God's teachings on marriage and homosexuality.

This week's Mic'd Up focuses on the systemic ills that seem to be plaguing the Knights.  The guests shed light on the problem, revealing that this problem has been in the making for decades.  I urge you to watch it.  If any readers of this post are Knights, please honestly access the condition of your own councils and actions that you might have to take to correct any flaws.  I realize that many local councils may well be faithful, but can the same be said for the district and state councils?

Please click here to watch this expose.  It is not in youtube so you will go to a separate page.

Obama And Keehan Gloat Together

The meeting about which I posted Sunday did indeed occur this past Tuesday.  Obama did crow before the Catholic Health Association.  During that speech he told the CHA and in particularly Sister Carol Keehan.  Some snippets:

• "We could not have gotten the ACA done without Sister Carol.."
• "Without your (im)moral force we could not have succeeded.." (italicized letters my editorial contribution)

These statements of the Messiah Most Miserable are factually correct.  They underscore the utter betrayal wrought by Sister Carol Keehan and her poorly-named Catholic Healthcare Association.  I won't go into all the other evils of Obamacare; suffice it to say that its facilitation of abortion and contraception, even to the point of forcing Catholics to pay for it, is a complete, utter travesty.  During the meeting, Obama quipped, "I just love nuns generally."  Somehow I don't think the Little Sisters of the Poor are "feeling the luuuv!" from the Messiah Most Miserable.

Heresy-Spouting Koch Is Archbishop Of Berlin

Last week I wrote about the "shadow council".  One of the more ridiculous statements coming out of that gab-fest is the notion that the Church should adapt its pastoral care practices to current "lived-out realities" particularly in matters relating with sexual ethics.  Of course that is precisely ass-backwards, as the timeless and immutable words of Jesus Christ are to be our sole guide - something that the Church has done for over two thousand years.

Cardinal Gerhard Muller called out this heretical foolishness for what it is, in no uncertain terms.  Edward Pentin quoted him in the National Catholic Register as saying that this attempt is "nothing more than the introduction of subjectivism and arbitrariness, wrapped up in sentimental and smug religious terminology."

With that in mind, many Catholics are puzzled as to why the Pope would have appointed Bishop Heiner Koch to be Archbishop of Berlin.  Koch was an attendee of the "shadow council" and has been known to defend the heresy of "gay marriages".  He said once that "to present homosexuality as sin is wounding".  No, it's God's truth.  That a bishop would regard God's teaching as "wounding" is cause for great alarm, not promotion to an important see.

While we pray that this appointment is not a harbinger of things to come in October, all indications are that such will be the case.

The Proclamation Of Truth Evokes Violent Reactions From Progressives

At a conference in Canada on June 5th, Cardinal Burke addressed the attendees on the crisis that western culture is facing.  LifeSiteNews has made the video available.  I post it now and have additional remarks below that.



The Cardinal gave very clear and succinct remarks about how the role of sexuality within marriage as God ordained it is crucial to the survival of civilization.   Perhaps it is that clarity that evoked quite the rage from Father Andre Samson, a priest from Ottawa who identifies himself as "gay".  See the LifeSiteNews piece and that of Vox Cantoris.  Samson called His Eminence a "clown" and "drag queen".

He went on to say that the Cardinal's defense of Catholic morality was "violent" to homosexuals. As I listened to the Cardinal's mild-mannered, measured delivery of his message, "violent" was the last thing that came to mind.  But Samson admitted more than he realized.  Those steeped in sin, particularly unrepented mortal sin, will experience pangs of conscience when they hear the truth.  Either they will embrace it and repent, or they will recoil in horror from it and continue with hardened hearts.  If the latter, they will always react violently and irrationally towards the truth, for they would rather be self-deluded as they careen towards hell.  They consider those telling the truth to be "mean" and "violent" for we upset the bubbles with which they attempt to surround themselves.  I alluded to one instance that I myself experienced in yesterday's post.  As this culture continues to degrade, more and more people who embrace filth and perversion will resent mightily those who tell them the truth; witness what happening with Christian businesses who won't affirm the mortal sins of gays.

We must continue to pray and of course we must redouble our proclamation of truth.  If the progressives shriek and recoil in reaction, keep at it.

Catholic Health Association To Prostitute Itself (Again!) To Obama

The Catholic Health Association, with Sister Carol Keehan still at the helm, just commenced a three-day meeting at the Marriott Wardham Park in northwest Washington DC.  They will be discussing Obamacare (crammed down our throats with the help of Keehan) and the "future" of health care.

To add insult to the injury, the three-day gab-fest will conclude this Tuesday June 9 with an address from the Messiah Most Miserable himself.  Gushes Keehan (with my comments in red), "As long-time supporters of a health care system that works for everyone not the unborn babies and those facing death panels and pays special attention to those who are poor and vulnerable, we are grateful for the President’s leadership on the ACA you know, the 2000+ page monstrosity that Pelosi said we'd have to pass to learn what's in it."

Work demands will keep me from protesting; otherwise I'd be there raising my voice.  The Catholic Health Association does not deserve to be called Catholic, given the way it threw not only the Catholic Church, but the entire country under the bus, all so they could curry the favor of the obamanista regime; and now they're gloating over it.  I am grateful that this affair isn't occurring on Catholic property and pray that no prelates will be in attendance (that means you, Cardinal McCarrick!).

An Example Of The Harm Caused By Pope Francis' Off-The-Cuff Remarks

I've blogged before over the questionable doings and sayings of Pope Francis; I link to the anthology here.  A clarification is in order.  In no way do I question any solemn pronouncement of the Holy Father.  When he speaks solemnly he is infallible.  However, the bulk of his statements (same true for most pontiffs) does not rise to the level of infallibility.  When he speaks without that degree of solemnity, good Catholics can examine and disagree, assuming they stand with the tradition of the Church.

A concern of mine, as I have stated in my postings, is that progressives or poorly-catechized Catholics might take imprudent statements and use them to justify their own erroneous beliefs and actions.  Within the past week we have seen quite a "case in point" in the comments section of a post on the Lepanto Institute blog.  In that post, Michael Hichborn gives some clarifications of a previous post in which he exposed the insinuation of a gay activist in the role of reviewing exhibitor applicants for the World Meeting of Families (to occur in September).  As you might have gleaned from previous posts this past week, I congratulate and thank him for his work in exposing this woman; whether or not the Archdiocese of Philadelphia acts on this information is another matter.  At any rate, as you see in the comments section, some take issue with both Mike and myself, going so far as to claim that we "hate homosexuals" and even that we "incite to murder".  Most of these comments come from Matt Dobson, who states that he is a "confirmation director" within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

Notice Dobson's comment that is dated June 7 at 9:51am, particularly the quote from Pope Francis that he seems to think constitutes Church authority for his beliefs that Hichborn and I are "acting contrary to the teachings of the Church".  That quote is NOT a papal pronouncment by any stretch of the imagination.  It's from an interview that he gave to America magazine almost two years ago; here's the link to the full interview.  No one can dare claim that such statements can be binding, for  specific criteria must be met for binding pronouncements (see this, then scroll to "explanation of papal infallibility").

Dobson did cite the Catechism paragraph 2358, that prohibits unjust discrimination against homosexuals - but only that which is unjust.  Is it inherently unjust to prevent those who flaunt their mortal sins to have control over significant areas of Church function?  I believe not.  Would Dobson believe that an avowed racist should be allowed to occupy Matozzo's role?  I suspect not and neither would I.  There are times when discrimination is just and its lack would constitute injustice.

I'm sure this sort of scene is being played out in multiple venues, where those flouting God's commandments are coddled and those doing the coddling cite as justification the pope's personal opinions and statements as though they're infallible doctrine.  I'm sure Mr. Dobson didn't intend this, but with his comments he gave prima facie evidence of the harm done by this pope's many imprudent "off-the-cuff" statements.  He provided invaluable service by demonstrating just why we all need to speak out against error, no matter the level from which it originates.

Does Caritas Control The Catholic Relief Services?

Many of you recall that I have blogged about Caritas, the faux-katholyc "social justice" racket honchoed by Cardinal Maradiaga.  I won't rehash all its deadly and anti-God activities; the link to the anthology is here for your review.

When I posted yessterday's article about Carolyn Woo's statement as released by Zenit, one tiny detail caught my eye.  I repost it here.  Notice - in the very first sentence - that Catholic Relief Services is being billed as "the US branch of Caritas".  Am I the only one who did not know this?  Here I thought all along that CRS was an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and wholely controlled by them.

This fact raises a whole bevy of questions:

• Are all donations and grants raised from US sources staying with CRS, or is a percentage of them making its way to the international organization?  How much of Catholic's donations to the CRS in-pew collection are being funneled to Cordaid and the World Social Forum?
• How much control do US bishops have over the doings of CRS as opposed to Caritas leadership?
• Does Caritas exert any control over other areas and outreaches commonly believed to be controlled by the USCCB?
• When and how did Caritas become insinuated as a controller of CRS?
• If Caritas is controlling CRS and proiding leadership to the World Social Forum (see the first link for a treatmetn of World Social Forum), would that not mean that CRS and the World Social Forum are sister organizations?  It is reasonable to believe that CRS and Cordaid are sister organizations since Cordaid is the Netherlands branch of Caritas.

By the way - if any overzealous CRS employee is reading this and is thinking of asking Zenit to pull this article down in "knee-jerk damage-control fashion", don't bother!  It's been archived!  Why make yourselves look sillier than you already do?

This is just the latest reason why not one red cent should be given to any outreach run by the USCCB.  We don't know where that money is going.

CRS Pouts After Its Well-Deserved Spankings

As announced a few days ago, Rick Estridge, the sodomite who occupied a high place at the Catholic Relief Services, has resigned.  He apparently was given quite a "consolation prize" - all from your dollars, be it through governmental grants (your tax dollars at work!) or the in-pew collections.

Zenit has published a statement by Carolyn Woo, president of CRS, on the Estridge debacle.  Read it.  Nowhere does she accept responsibility for harboring someone guilty of flagrant immorality.  Rather, she voices "strong objections" to Lepanto, Church Militant and us bloggers who merely expose their misdeeds.

Today's Vortex takes Woo to task.  I'll also post a link to Church Militant, for today Voris confronted Woo in person; you'll see her scurry away to avoid him in the video on that post.

Donate not one more penny to them.  That beast must be starved to death.

More On The Gay Pandering At The World Meeting Of Families In Philadelphia

This past Friday I touched a bit on the expose done by Lepanto Institute regarding Teresa Matozzo, the lesbian who is the de facto "gate keeper" when it comes to decisions regarding exhibitors at the World Meeting of Families in September.   It seems that it raised the neck hackles on the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  Lepanto issued a clarification, although they had nothing to amend.  They did publish a statement issued by the Archdiocese, which could use its own clarification as it did not address the concerns broached by Lepanto.

With today's Vortex, maybe we have stumbled upon some, uhhh, "context" for the snit-fit that the Philadelphia archdiocese pitched at Lepanto.  I'll post it below, but will now state the highlights.   Archbishop Chaput, prelate of Philadelphia, was interviewed about the upcoming meeting.  During that interview, he said participants will find programming for all types of families, including "non-traditional families", meaning situations headed by gay/lesbian couples.  Well, maybe not just "couples"; could be "thruples" or a whole gang of them (perhaps with some animals thrown into the mix), but I digress.

I used the word "situations" deliberately, for they are not - repeat NOT - families!  A true family has as its base one man (with XY chromosomes) and one woman (with XX chromsomes) united by the Sacrament of Matrimony in a faithful and permanent union ordered to their sanctification and the generation and rearing of children.  It's a pity that one must spell it out.  I remember a time when people of common sense understood that; but common sense isn't so common anymore.

With his phrase "non-traditional families", the archbishop bastardized the true meaning of the word "family".  Unless the programming for these situations is based upon calling those in these situations to immediate repentance, these programs will only serve to lull such deluded individuals into a false comfort as they careen towards hell.

Given the archbishop's politically correct groveling to the gay-nazis, it's quite understandable that the Archdiocese's collective nose would have been jerked out of joint by the expose done by Lepanto; hence its ridiculous and unjustifiable diatribe.

BREAKING - Catholic Relief Service VP In Same Sex Marriage Resigns

Lepanto Institute posted an announcement released by the Catholic Relief Services this afternoon.  Rick Estridge, the Vice President for Overseas Finance at the CRS - and a sodomite in a "same-sex marriage" has resigned his position.  Lepanto has some worthwhile discussion on the matter, as CRS heaped praise upon Estridge as they announced the retirement.

One might ask if CRS's announcement would have sung Estridge's praise had he been a white supremist or involved in drug trafficking. We think not.  Moreover, this resignation would not have taken over a month to have happened.  It would have happened in mid-April when Lepanto first broke the story, at the latest.  Ideally it would have happened much sooner than that, when CRS officials learned of Estridge's perversion and disregard for God's laws concerning marriage.

Please don't take this as a sign that Catholic Relief Services has finally seen the light.  They're in damage-control mode here.  They must have seen a drop in their donations; perhaps the May in-pew collection suffered as a result of their latest scandal.  The number of scandals at Catholic Relief Services is legion, and that number will increase since it's merely an arm of the likewise ill-begotten United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  These beasts need to be starved; donote not one penny to them.

Eucharistic Prayer Number Two

Perhaps it's only a phenomenum in the Archdiocese of Washington, but I've noticed that at Mass - be it weekday or Sunday - the second Eucharistic prayer is almost always used, to the de facto exclusion of the others.  I can think of only one reason, and if my guess is true, it's a rather sad display of misplaced priorities.  Of the four Eucharistic prayer, it is the shortest.  And yes, I've noticed this disparity in usage has increased during this current pontificate.

Obviously the Consecration is still there and it certainly is valid.  But we can say the same for the other three.  Are the priests and congregation in such a hurry to rush through Mass so they can get on with whatever it is they want to do?  Have they no recollection that the Mass is the most important item in their days, where they encounter the Lord Jesus Christ not just spiritually but physically?

If time is really an issue, there are many things that can be curtailed, if not eliminated.

• Congratulating "senor altar servers" and other parish volunteers during Mass (probably a liturgical abuse anyway).\
• Reciting half the bulletin
• Jokes and guffaws during homilies
• Quizzing the congregation during homilies (since when does the GIRM allow that?)
• Singing all verses of the entrance hymn
• Requiring the congregation to remain until all six verses of the recessional hymn is sung (violating the GIRM's stated purpose of the recessional)

Holy Mass is the pinnacle of our week - and the Consecration is the pinnacle of Mass, is it not?  Does that not deserve more focus?  Why not the first prayer - which is the Roman Canon, used for centuries?  It is so much more expressive of the mysteries of our Faith.  Can that not be used more than just 2 -3 times a year?

How many others have noticed this?  Any thoughts?