How Do Progressives Like Obama Keep Getting Elected?? Look At The Cracker Barrel Situation And You'll See How.

Have you asked yourselves that question numerous times?  I certainly have.  Bear in mind that I live in Montgomery County, MD - a literal liberal loony bin.  I've no problem believing how Dems such as O'Malley and Mikulski get elected, but I did harbor hopes that perhaps the rest of the country had some scintilla of intelligence left.  Maybe they do - but it's rapidly disappearing, it would seem.

I got that impression after I saw the story about the employee of Cracker Barrel (in Florida, I believe) who was fired after giving away restaurant food - without paying for it.  This was not his first incident; it was his fifth.  He had been warned about it the previous four times yet continued to carry on.  What seems to be tugging at the heartstrings of folks is that the man is a 73-year old veteran and (at least during the fifth violation) gave the muffin to a homeless person.  You can read the story in the Blaze and IJR Review.  Bear in mind as you read these accounts that these two sources are generally conservative; yet they too seem to be so swept up in the emotional appeal that they have let their feelings cloud their ability to think and reason in logical manners - manners that weigh immutable moral principles.  They might also be biased against Cracker Barrel for their admittedly cowardly treatment of Phil Robertson a few months back.

The moral relativism is astounding.  While a good many people do understand the man's actions as being theft, too many other have no problem with what the guy did and express anger at Cracker Barrel for firing the thief.  I'll summarize a bit of the faulty thinking and rebut it as best as I can.

• "He was being kind and generous to the homeless person.  Jesus would approve and bless him for it."
• Folks, we can only be truly generous with what is our property, not the property of others.  While the first is authentic generosity, the other is theft - a sin against the Seventh Commandment.  It doesn't matter that he intended to give it away, for an inherently immoral means can never be justified by the ends, be that end ever so laudable.
• "It's only a muffin, how much can it cost?"
• The dollar amount of the theft doesn't change the nature of the crime.
• If indeed the muffin was so inexpensive, why would not the employee simply have bought the muffin himself?  That way the muffin would have truly been his to give away and the generosity would have been authentic and not a bastardization of generosity.
• "Cracker Barrel was so heartless.  Why didn't they give him a chance?"
• They gave him four chances already.  How many chances should Cracker Barrel have given him before they realized that they had to fire this loose canon?  The IJR vdeo reveals that he'd probably have stolen again.  Why should Cracker Barrel have then given him a sixth opportunity for theft?
• "He was fired for being kind to the homeless."
• No.  He was fired for displaying that he was a serial thief.
• "Cracker Barrel needs to respect elders/veterans"
• Respect for elders and veterans does not entail looking the other way when they commit crimes.  Would these same people be so sympathetic if the thief were a bit younger?  Why should age and veteran status matter?  
• I'll be blunt.  His age and veteran status were highlighted to manipulate people's emotions and impair their ability to think rationally.  This tactic seems to have worked on too many people.

Doesn't this man's theft have a rather familiar ring to it?  Why, yes!  It's the same kind of "redistribution" and "compassion" that is practiced - at our expense - by the oligarchy that inhabits the White House and Congress.  It's the same that is advocated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the "social justice" crowd in Church hierarchy -and yes - seemingly approved by Pope Francis himself.

These people, thinking they are "compassionate", are condoning theft, sin against the Seventh Commandment.  It is said that we as a nation get the leaders we deserve.  Ladies and gentlemen of good sense and morals, we must speak out against these erroneous notions when we encounter them - and that seems to be happening with ever greater frequency.

O Sanctissima

This has to be my favorite version.  Click here for more detail on the group performing this piece.

Instrumentum Laboris - In Preparation For The October Synod

This past week the Vatican released a preparatory document for the October synod on the family.  Here it is, from the Vatican website.  It is my understanding that these Instrumentum Laboris documents are not intended to set forth teaching per se; rather, they state the topics for discussion for the upcoming meeting and they more or less frame the conversations that will occur.

While this promulgates no teaching, it still offers helpful insights.  LifeSiteNews highlights some issues, that can be found in paragraph 12 of the document.   It doesn't take any great genius to surmise that there is generally less familiarity with Church teaching on marriage and family life than there was two generations ago.  In particular, it states that the clergy is so unfamiliar with the teachings that they believe themselves incapable of proclaiming it - so they remain silent.  While I'm sure that may be true in some cases, I know such is not the case in the Archdiocese of Washington.  In my own parish, there was the case of Father Guarnizo; when he upheld Church teaching by denying a practicing lesbian Holy Communion, he was ousted from the Archdiocese.  I am aware of another priest who, several years ago, taught classes on Humanae Vitae.  When the Church's clear teaching on contraception was expounded, that priest was silenced and sent away.

Then in paragraph 15 we see a faulty hypothesis offered as to why Catholics don't accept Church teaching.  It is supposed that the difficulty lies in the faithful lacking "an authentic Christian experience..an encounter with Christ".  Do not "encounters with Christ" happen during the Sacraments, particularly with Confession and the worthy reception of Holy Communion?  Perhaps what we have here is another manifestation of the lack of proper Catholic education.  We also see that problematic word "experience" crop up.  To what objective experience does that document refer?  I don't think there can be any one objective "experience", for experience often has to do with individual temperament, etc.  "Experiences" do differ from person to person.  Could that be why Jesus always said "if you love me, keep my commandments"?  Obedience, not experience, seems to be the proper norm of Christian life.  But then again, one must know God's commands and teachings in order to properly obey them.

I'll be frank.  I don't know what can be gleaned from this upcoming synod that we don't already know.  Why don't we just obey what has already been revealed to us?

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Massachusetts Bubble Zone Law

The Supreme Court, in its unanimous ruling in McCullen v Coakley, upheld the First Amendment rights of pro-life activists in Massachusetts by ruling that the 35-foot bubble zone was unconstitutional.  Here is a more in-depth analysis from LifeSiteNews.  Here is CBS covering the ruling, with an interview of Matt Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Rob Schenk was in the court chambers as the ruling was pronounced.  Below are his remarks.

This ruling will obviously bode well for those of us across the nation who pray and offer help to abortion-minded ladies.  In gratitude for this ruling, won't you please join some pro-lifers who are already at an abortuary nearby you?

The Senseless Census

We've been inundated by sad tales of Lois Lerner's hard drive crashing, causing all of her emails to be lost.  Poor thing!  Fortunately there are these things called servers - you know, the main computers that govern an entity's data system - and emails?  Did that crash too?  Now we hear that they've had to shell out $50k to the National Organization for Marriage for divulging their tax returns to the Human Rights Campaign.

Just a few days ago we learned that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot even protect the environment within its own walls.  It seems that the Civil Service Exam is failing to screen prospective applicants for requisite potty-training knowledge.  Its employees are defecating in its hallways.  I wish that was a joke.

So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen!  Your tax dollars at work - working against you, that is.  And I myself came across my own example.  From the United States Census Bureau I received in the mail today (that is, June 26) my 2014 Census Test.  Below is the "letter" that came with it.

Notice that I was asked to complete this thing by July 1.  Below the website address it reads, "respond on time to avoid a personal visit from a Census Bureau interviewer."  Oh, goody!  I was given 5 days to respond before I could expect an "interviewer" - accompanied by how many swat-team staff, dare I ask?  How fortunate that I did not choose this time to go on summer vacation; else I might have come home to find some jack-boot "interviewers" ready to accost me on my return.  But do bear in mind the July 1st deadline as I continue.

There were a number of questions that were rather inane, based upon this July 1st deadline.  I copied some and will post (with my identifying information redacted).  Observe.

Notice that the wording of the question is nonsensical, given that the census is supposed to be finished by July 1st?  The wording of the question implies that July 1st is in the past, not future.  It might have made more sense had I received it on July 3rd (to be submitted at a later date).  Alternatively, it would make sense to phrase the question, "Will you be living or staying at _____ on July 1, 2014?", for that would place the question in the future.

So the folks at the Census Bureau don't understand the proper usage of time in relation to language and communication.  Again, our tax dollars are being wasted.  But perhaps I should look on the bright side.  All indications are (so far) that the Census folks are at least potty-trained.

Bishops Cower Before "Gay Pride" Days In Major Cities

In this Vortex, Michael Voris wonders aloud if the Catholic bishops really "have Catholic hearts".  While we'll never know the answer to that question, the question is fair given the lackluster actions they take to moral evils.  Voris uses as an example of "gay pride days" that occur this time of year in major cities.  In the Archdiocese of Washington, the nation's capital, I can attest that our chancery turns a blind eye to the debauched orgy that happens here (this time a few weeks ago).  It was even worse in the Archdiocese of Boston, when Cardinal O'Malley refused to rebuke some Franciscans who set up a booth at their "pride festival".  Mind you, Cardinal O'Malley himsef is a Capuchin. And of course there's St Francis of Assisi Church in New York City where a blasphemous "pre-pride mass" was set to occur.  Where is Cardinal Dolan on that - or did we answer that question last week?

Note - speaking of quisling bishops, read what an Italian bishop did to one of his parish priests when the latter was preaching on the sin of fornication.  Doesn't it seem to you that the bishop was trying to soothe his fornicating sugar-daddies?  Kudos to Father Vicario and shame on Bishop Brambilla (ht Pewsitter).

Pope Francis's Bad Examples (Intended Or Not) Continue To Emit Purification In The Church

A few weeks ago I wrote about the debacle that Pope Francis allowed, if not orchestrated, at the Vatican Gardens on Pentecost Sunday.  Well it seems that the fallout was rather immediate.  In a Catholic Church in Orlando, FL, also on Pentecost Sunday, two Muslim men were allowed to give their "reflections" - in place of the homily!  See this Zenit article.  I do believe that Father McNamara is incorrect, or simply trying to "save face" for the Holy Father.  Make no mistake about it; just as the Holy Father's disregard for Holy Thursday rubrics gave terrible example in giving priests and bishops anywhere the false notion that they could wash women's feet, so too did his allowance of blasphemy at the Vatican Gardens give the erroneous impression that they could let any Muslim strut and preach in Churches.  There's no gainsaying that.

Moreover, my blogging colleagues Eponymous Flower and Rorate Caeli have other posts that vocalize what many of us are sensing: that traditional reverence in the Catholic Church is regarded with suspicion if not outright contempt.  Again, this seems to be occurring with the permission and possible orchestration of the highest offices in the Vatican.

Let's be very clear about something.  We have been promised by Our Lord that the Holy Father will never solemnly promulgate error as sacred dogma.  However - we have been promised nothing more in regards to proceeds from the Vatican.  We need to keep our eyes wide open, to expunge from our thinking any hint of naivete regarding these matters.  Otherwise, how else can we pray intelligently for His Holiness?

Unless There Is Repentance, God's Unconditional Love Will Be To No Avail

Simply put, God insists that we approach Him on His terms, not our own.  The Church of Nice, along with their atheist/progressive puppet masters, have trouble acknowledging that the first admonition of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel of Mark is "repent".

Too often I hear at my own church homilies that proclaim the greatness of God's love (true enough) and that if we'd just "open ourselves to His love" our lives would be fuller.  Well, what does "open ourselves" mean?  I know full well that in that congregation are those in irregular marriages, those who call themselves "pro-choice", those who support sexual perversion (and who punish those priests who stand for God's teaching in that regard).  They will never "open themselves to His love" until they repent of their mortal sins - and many won't unless they are told, point-blank from the pulpit, just what specific sins endanger their immortal souls and that they need to get themselves to Confession pronto.  First things first - as exemplified in the Gospel of Mark (see Mark 1:15).

Today's Vortex delves more deeply into this matter.  I'll reiterate one key line of Voris's: God loves us unconditionally, but He does not save us unconditionally.

More Progressive Hacks Trying To Dilute The Meaning Of Being Pro-Life

First, let's deal with Mark Shea (the patheos blogger) and the issue of gun control.  From what I understand, he seems to think that all pro-life people must support gun locks, "smart technology", etc to claim the moniker "pro-life".  This article from American Catholic links to Shea's patheos article about it.   Because the patheos bloggers are paid based on the number of hits their blogs get, I refuse to post to the patheos article directly.  I will, however, link to his Facebook posting.

Here he posts a Catholic News Service article that makes the ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church's position on individual gun ownership is that it should be banned.  The basis for that conclusion couldn't be too much more flimsy than it is.  The basis is a parenthetical remark in a footnote of the document entitled "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice".  Reminder - the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has no inherent teaching authority at canon law.  Certainly no one need take to heart some obscure little footnote in a document.

Now I'll quote from a less-obscure document - called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Obviously this does bear the weight of the teaching Magisterium.  I'll be quoting actual paragraphs as opposed to little footnotes: paragraphs 2263-2265 to be precise.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The right to self-defense by individuals is a necessary corollary to their inherent right to life.  For just as much as an individual has the right to obtain food, shelter, etc to maintain his/her life and that of his/her family's, he/she has the right and even solemn duty to protect him/herself and family from unjust aggression.  It stands to reason that this God-given right to self -defense also includes the right to have the means necessary to address threats as they present themselves in this 21st century.  Keeping paragraph 2265 in mind, please reread the American Catholic link and consider the predicament in which that young mother found herself.  Had she not had ready access to a gun, unencumbered by a "gun lock" or politically-correct clap-trap, she and her baby might well have been murder victims.

Now I may be just speculating, but I think I understand (in part) the motives of the USCCB for jumping on the progressive gun-control bandwagon.  Many programs of the USCCB, including CRS, are heavily funded by various governmental agencies.  They want to keep those funds flowing.  As far as Shea goes, who knows?  Knowing, however, that he (and other patheos bloggers) get paid based on their numbers of hits, I will not link directly to him.

But enough of gun control.  According to Bishop John Wester of the Diocese of Salt Lake (UT), no one can be called "pro-life" who opposes Medicaid expansion.  Of course, who would be funding this Medicaid expansion?  Find the nearest mirror and stare into it; there's your answer.

No one who calls themselves Catholic will deny their responsibility to come to the assistance of the needy.  The question is how best to do it; on that good people can disagree.  That is a matter of prudential judgment.  In other words, one can call themselves "pro-life" if they don't agree with the USCCB-like clamoring for more governmental encroachment.  Regarding abortion and other intrinsic evils such as contraception, no one can make allowances for them.  Certainly no one can be pro-life who accepts the usage of contraceptives and the such.

I and others must continue to call on the carpet those who attempt to use the term "pro-life" to sell their progressive positions.

More On Holy Innocents Situation From Forward Boldly

Father Justin Wylie

I've written recently about the proposed closing of Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan and the retaliation taken by Cardinal Dolan against Father Justin Wylie.  In  one of the posts, I put up a Vortex in which Michael Voris interviewed Paul McGregor, a parishioner at Holy Innocents.  Christine Le Niles of Forward Boldly also interviewed Mr. McGregor.  He sheds more light on the events there.

After the interview, Christine read the text of Father Wylie's homily - the homily that caused Cardinal Dolan to see red and to draw his long knives out against that priest.