As mentioned in previous posts, the pro-life pregnancy centers in Maryland are under blatant attack. Pro-abortion tethers are drawing tight around the throats of the cpcs in Baltimore City. Now they have their sights trained on those in Montgomery County. These people on the County Council are barely making any pretense at impartiality. It is being held Tuesday, Dec 1st (tomorrow, that is) at 7:30 pm at the County Council office buildings. Here are directions:
From Rockville Pike (Rt. 355), northbound:
• Turn left on East Jefferson Street
• Turn left on Monroe Street
• Immediate Right turn into Public Parking garage (may cost)
• Walk out of garage, and go left/up hill on East Jefferson
• Turn left at Maryland Ave. (1 short block)
• Office building on the left, #100 Maryland Ave. Building says, "Council Office Building" over front door.
From 270 (Gaithersburg, Damascus, etc.)
• Take 270 Southbound
• Take Exit for Route 28 (may be called W. Montgomery Ave.), going Eastbound
• From Rt. 28/W. Montgomery, turn Right onto East Jefferson St.
• Pass Maryland Ave.
• Turn Right on Monroe St.
• Immediate Right turn into Public Parking garage (may cost)
• Walk out of garage, and go left/uphill on East Jefferson St.
• Turn left at Maryland Ave. (1 short block)
• Office building on the left, #100 Maryland Ave. Building says, "Council Office Building" over front door.
As reported in a previous posting, five of the nine Councilmembers had their names listed on the program of NARAL's last fundraiser (October). In other words, they had contributed money. As did pro-abortion members of the MD State Legislature before them, they are attempting to justify their attack based on this sorry excuse for research put out by NARAL. The obvious question is how can NARAL have any claim at all to the impartiality needed to accomplish any credible research? The answer is likewise obvious - they can't!
We need to be there. Most of the council is most likely in the backpocket of pro-abortion money. The good news is that every one of them is up for election in 2010. See you there!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Climategate and the Catholic Church
Most people are aware of the recent hacking of emails within the servers of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University. Regardless of how these emails were obtained, they are what they are. They reveal much deceit on the part of proponents of the "global warming" theory - a hoax upon which the quasi-socialists in DC, including the Messiah Most Miserable, are basing their schemes to seize our money and control over our lives. Watch the interview below where a retired climatologist discusses the implications of the hacked emails.
Did you notice that he said that some of the emails were between the scientists and a reporter at the New York Times? Now do we know why they (and their mass-media colleagues) have been absolutely silent on this matter? Oh, by the way. This is the same New York Times that published private emails of then Vice Presidential candidate Governor Palin when her yahoo account was hacked, so their attempt to claim moral high ground here is laughable at best. Anyway, we have further proof that this so-called "global-warming" is a gigantic concocted hoax.
So why does this discussion appear on a blog that ostensibly deals with things Catholic? That's a good question, and the answer is simple. There are bishops that have glommed onto the global-warming schtick, hook-line-sinker. On the website we reported how "Cardinal McCarrick went green" - and prayed before an iceberg (first item). In fact, the USCCB seems to have been hoodwinked by this, as evidenced by this statement. We've known all along that there is no "growing challenge of global climate change", so maybe they will now stop getting all atwitter over it and start proclaiming the True Faith and True Morals.
Did you notice that he said that some of the emails were between the scientists and a reporter at the New York Times? Now do we know why they (and their mass-media colleagues) have been absolutely silent on this matter? Oh, by the way. This is the same New York Times that published private emails of then Vice Presidential candidate Governor Palin when her yahoo account was hacked, so their attempt to claim moral high ground here is laughable at best. Anyway, we have further proof that this so-called "global-warming" is a gigantic concocted hoax.
So why does this discussion appear on a blog that ostensibly deals with things Catholic? That's a good question, and the answer is simple. There are bishops that have glommed onto the global-warming schtick, hook-line-sinker. On the website we reported how "Cardinal McCarrick went green" - and prayed before an iceberg (first item). In fact, the USCCB seems to have been hoodwinked by this, as evidenced by this statement. We've known all along that there is no "growing challenge of global climate change", so maybe they will now stop getting all atwitter over it and start proclaiming the True Faith and True Morals.
The Myth of the "Good Enough" Catholic
There's no doubt that many of us have wondered how the Catholic Church today has been reduced to a pathetic shadow of what she was a mere hundred years ago - or even fifty. I've spent some time reading about the matter to try to understand the myriad influences, both internal and external, that have contributed to the Church's obvious decline (and western civilization's too, for that matter). On the website, I've listed some books to read and now repeat those recommendations. In addition, please examine the Land O'Lakes Statement that has provided the game plan for undermining Catholic higher education and the various versions of the Humanist Manifesto (the first one was signed by John Dewey, reputed "father of American public education"). I also recommend the book "Behind the Lodge Door" by Paul A. Fisher. Google the title and many sites (including Amazon) appear, from where you can order the book. In that book is discussed the many ways that Freemasonry has had detrimental impacts on American culture. I'd also recommend the dvd movie "Maafa 21" that details the rise of the pro-death movement in America. Hint: watch the movie and read Fisher's book together; there are common linkages!
So now that I've described some detrimental and even demonic influences upon American and Catholic culture, did all that mean we were doomed sitting ducks? I think not, but that means more questions must be answered. Consider the generation that fought in World War II, the so-called "Greatest Generation." Now let me be clear; they did indeed, at great sacrifice, fend off and defeat some of the worst totalitarians ever to walk the earth. Because of them, civilization was saved - for the time being. Yet we must admit that much mischief happened just a few years later, when this Greatest Generation had laid aside its military uniforms and weapons and took their places in political offices. Under their watch, Lyndon Johnson foisted the so-called "Great Society" with its destructive welfare system on us. Crime skyrocketed. To top things off, the Roe v Wade decision came down, courtesy of justices appointed by presidents who were WWII veterans. We can only conclude that they were indeed asleep at the switch. It seems that many (not all!) forgot that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - with emphasis on the word "eternal".
While I think that much can be explained by Carlin's book (again, check the website book list), something more fundamental went awry. In the December issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review is an article written by John Young entitled "From Order to Chaos in Ten Years". (It's not online yet, but when it is, I'll post the link.) He points out that the current problems in the Church didn't just magically appear during the turbulent 1960s. He mentions that Pope St Pius X understood the problem of modernism and issued Pascendi Dominici Gregis. His encyclical was followed by Pope Pius XII's encyclical Hamani Generis. (Go to the side bar to see encyclicals from Leo XIII onward).
He then talks of his experience of Catholicism in his life and his fellow Catholics. I was a child during that time, but a fairly observant one. I can corroborate what Young says based on my own observations. He points out that while the "rank and file" Catholic during the 1950s generally didn't question what they were taught, they really didn't have a deep grasp of the truths of their faith. They (like I) could recite the Baltimore Catechism, but couldn't give answers that represented intellectual depth and integration of the truths into their personal lives. They didn't take it seriously. They did not strive for the highest level of sanctity that they could achieve. In a word, they didn't make the Faith to heart and make it their own. In fact, while they may have accepted the directives of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals, many of them chafed under what they thought were joy-robbing restrictions. This was particularly true in matters pertaining to sexuality.
At that time, the 1930 Lambeth Conference had already occurred - that conference in which the Anglicans shamed themselves by admitting the usage of contraception. After the Vatican II conference (and the various misinterpretations regarding it), many matters of discipline were relaxed (fasting before Communion, etc). There was talk of the Church admitting the usage of contraception. Of course, that didn't happen - Humanae Vitae happened instead.
I write all this to explain what I believe are the reasons for the faith of Catholics melting like snow in hell during the 1960s: how fairly loyal Catholics could just fall like dominoes into rebellion against the True Church and ultimately against Our Lord Himself. They did not make heaven their ultimate aim in life. They did not make holiness a prime personal goal. I think Mr. Young's lessons are worth the read.
Advent started today, as did a new liturgical year. This would be an excellent time to take stock, to make the Kingdom of God our ultimate aim. There is no such thing as a "good enough" Catholic. The minute anyone thinks he or she is "good enough", that may well be a warning sign of complacency or worse.
So now that I've described some detrimental and even demonic influences upon American and Catholic culture, did all that mean we were doomed sitting ducks? I think not, but that means more questions must be answered. Consider the generation that fought in World War II, the so-called "Greatest Generation." Now let me be clear; they did indeed, at great sacrifice, fend off and defeat some of the worst totalitarians ever to walk the earth. Because of them, civilization was saved - for the time being. Yet we must admit that much mischief happened just a few years later, when this Greatest Generation had laid aside its military uniforms and weapons and took their places in political offices. Under their watch, Lyndon Johnson foisted the so-called "Great Society" with its destructive welfare system on us. Crime skyrocketed. To top things off, the Roe v Wade decision came down, courtesy of justices appointed by presidents who were WWII veterans. We can only conclude that they were indeed asleep at the switch. It seems that many (not all!) forgot that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - with emphasis on the word "eternal".
While I think that much can be explained by Carlin's book (again, check the website book list), something more fundamental went awry. In the December issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review is an article written by John Young entitled "From Order to Chaos in Ten Years". (It's not online yet, but when it is, I'll post the link.) He points out that the current problems in the Church didn't just magically appear during the turbulent 1960s. He mentions that Pope St Pius X understood the problem of modernism and issued Pascendi Dominici Gregis. His encyclical was followed by Pope Pius XII's encyclical Hamani Generis. (Go to the side bar to see encyclicals from Leo XIII onward).
He then talks of his experience of Catholicism in his life and his fellow Catholics. I was a child during that time, but a fairly observant one. I can corroborate what Young says based on my own observations. He points out that while the "rank and file" Catholic during the 1950s generally didn't question what they were taught, they really didn't have a deep grasp of the truths of their faith. They (like I) could recite the Baltimore Catechism, but couldn't give answers that represented intellectual depth and integration of the truths into their personal lives. They didn't take it seriously. They did not strive for the highest level of sanctity that they could achieve. In a word, they didn't make the Faith to heart and make it their own. In fact, while they may have accepted the directives of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals, many of them chafed under what they thought were joy-robbing restrictions. This was particularly true in matters pertaining to sexuality.
At that time, the 1930 Lambeth Conference had already occurred - that conference in which the Anglicans shamed themselves by admitting the usage of contraception. After the Vatican II conference (and the various misinterpretations regarding it), many matters of discipline were relaxed (fasting before Communion, etc). There was talk of the Church admitting the usage of contraception. Of course, that didn't happen - Humanae Vitae happened instead.
I write all this to explain what I believe are the reasons for the faith of Catholics melting like snow in hell during the 1960s: how fairly loyal Catholics could just fall like dominoes into rebellion against the True Church and ultimately against Our Lord Himself. They did not make heaven their ultimate aim in life. They did not make holiness a prime personal goal. I think Mr. Young's lessons are worth the read.
Advent started today, as did a new liturgical year. This would be an excellent time to take stock, to make the Kingdom of God our ultimate aim. There is no such thing as a "good enough" Catholic. The minute anyone thinks he or she is "good enough", that may well be a warning sign of complacency or worse.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
CINOs O'Malley and Kaine Hold Joint Foot-In-Mouth Conference
It's the eve of Thanksgiving and our thoughts are geared towards preparations for tomorrow's feast. However, because Catholic-bashers take no holidays, neither can we.
I read in today's Washington Times that the governors of Maryland and Virginia, both Catholics-in-name-only, O'Malley and Kaine, took umbrage at the Archdiocese of Washington because the latter announced that it would be constrained by the draconian DC city regulations that would compromise the Church's ability to carry on its social services. Snorts O'Malley, "It would be very, very sad for all concerned. I don't understand how they can possibly do this." "They", however, means the Archdiocese.
Dear Governors, let me explain some common sense and your own faith to you. It is the Archdiocese that is having the proverbial screws applied to it. We as the Church serve the poor and perform other works of mercy because we act in obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ. However, we obey ALL of the commands of Our Lord, not just the ones deemed "politically correct" by the liberal Democratic establishment. It is that obedience to the Magisterium that defines who we are and thus what we do. Our service to the poor stems from our obedience to the Magisterium in all things pertaining to faith and morals. We serve on God's terms, not on the the terms of those who would eject God from public life. To put it succinctly, without faith and morals, there are no works of faith. We must serve God rather than the whims of political wonks.
Again, we as a Church will serve as we can without compromising who we are and the God whom we serve. Dear Governors, do you understand English? By the way, are these the same liberals who so often gripe and moan about "separation of church and state"? Yet here are these government officials trying to dictate to the Church what they want us to do? My! That "wall" certainly seems to come and go at the whims of select people, doesn't it now? But we do notice the basic strategy here. The Democrat libs in the DC City Council make it impossible for the Church to carry out her mission in its entirety, then these Dem libs from Maryland and Virginia swoop in for the kill by mocking the Church for being unable to render the services in accord with its identity. In other words, they say to the Church, "You will be and do what we dictate, or else!"
Speaking of government officials, do remember that 2010 elections are around the corner. We can say anything we want, as we are not a 501c3 charity. These two CINOs really do need to receive their pink slips asap. (An after-the-fact correction. Kaine DID receive his during VA's special election. Now O'Malley and many more of these people need to be relieved of their offices.)
We also remind you of a tool we developed last year - Wisdom on Windshields. You see, you might see on a car at your Catholic church a bumper strip or other decal stating support of a pro-abortion politician or candidate. However, you might also be rushing into Mas and/or not see the car owner. No problem! Just deposit a Wisdom on Windshields flyer under the wiper or in the car door (make sure it can't blow away). You can download it here and have it handy on your own computer. Print it out and always carry a supply with you to Church, as you'll never know when an opportunity will arise to educate an ignorant fellow Catholic. Those of you in other areas of the country should feel free to copy the language to your own letterhead, as your politicians may not be impressed with our Maryland address.
I read in today's Washington Times that the governors of Maryland and Virginia, both Catholics-in-name-only, O'Malley and Kaine, took umbrage at the Archdiocese of Washington because the latter announced that it would be constrained by the draconian DC city regulations that would compromise the Church's ability to carry on its social services. Snorts O'Malley, "It would be very, very sad for all concerned. I don't understand how they can possibly do this." "They", however, means the Archdiocese.
Dear Governors, let me explain some common sense and your own faith to you. It is the Archdiocese that is having the proverbial screws applied to it. We as the Church serve the poor and perform other works of mercy because we act in obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ. However, we obey ALL of the commands of Our Lord, not just the ones deemed "politically correct" by the liberal Democratic establishment. It is that obedience to the Magisterium that defines who we are and thus what we do. Our service to the poor stems from our obedience to the Magisterium in all things pertaining to faith and morals. We serve on God's terms, not on the the terms of those who would eject God from public life. To put it succinctly, without faith and morals, there are no works of faith. We must serve God rather than the whims of political wonks.
Again, we as a Church will serve as we can without compromising who we are and the God whom we serve. Dear Governors, do you understand English? By the way, are these the same liberals who so often gripe and moan about "separation of church and state"? Yet here are these government officials trying to dictate to the Church what they want us to do? My! That "wall" certainly seems to come and go at the whims of select people, doesn't it now? But we do notice the basic strategy here. The Democrat libs in the DC City Council make it impossible for the Church to carry out her mission in its entirety, then these Dem libs from Maryland and Virginia swoop in for the kill by mocking the Church for being unable to render the services in accord with its identity. In other words, they say to the Church, "You will be and do what we dictate, or else!"
Speaking of government officials, do remember that 2010 elections are around the corner. We can say anything we want, as we are not a 501c3 charity. These two CINOs really do need to receive their pink slips asap. (An after-the-fact correction. Kaine DID receive his during VA's special election. Now O'Malley and many more of these people need to be relieved of their offices.)
We also remind you of a tool we developed last year - Wisdom on Windshields. You see, you might see on a car at your Catholic church a bumper strip or other decal stating support of a pro-abortion politician or candidate. However, you might also be rushing into Mas and/or not see the car owner. No problem! Just deposit a Wisdom on Windshields flyer under the wiper or in the car door (make sure it can't blow away). You can download it here and have it handy on your own computer. Print it out and always carry a supply with you to Church, as you'll never know when an opportunity will arise to educate an ignorant fellow Catholic. Those of you in other areas of the country should feel free to copy the language to your own letterhead, as your politicians may not be impressed with our Maryland address.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Baltimore Catholics! You Must Be Doing Something Right!
A source who must remain unnamed forwarded a snippet of communication received from the Archdiocese of Baltimore: (begin snippet)
Office of the Neumann Vicar
1) Parishes that received envelopes from the CCHD collection without money in them, but with notes or “coupons” protesting the CCHD should send them directly to Bishop Madden’s office at the Catholic Center.
(end snippet)
Now what does that mean? Will you be receiving "guilt trip" letters? If so, I'd suggest that you point out your support of authentically Catholic charities: those that actually perform the Works of Mercy (both corporal and spiritual). You might also point out these most serious gaffes of the Baltimore CCHD office: funding a prisoner-advocate group to have a child molester lobby against landlord rights (our November 9th posting) or, the funding of the Baltmore ACORN from local funds so that they can tell pimps how to engage in sex trafficking of underage girls (our September 23rd posting).
Or just put it in the trash. If any other fallout occurs, please advise via the comment box. Thank you, and again - congratulations! You have made your concerns known to the Archdiocese CCHD, and they have taken note!
Office of the Neumann Vicar
1) Parishes that received envelopes from the CCHD collection without money in them, but with notes or “coupons” protesting the CCHD should send them directly to Bishop Madden’s office at the Catholic Center.
(end snippet)
Now what does that mean? Will you be receiving "guilt trip" letters? If so, I'd suggest that you point out your support of authentically Catholic charities: those that actually perform the Works of Mercy (both corporal and spiritual). You might also point out these most serious gaffes of the Baltimore CCHD office: funding a prisoner-advocate group to have a child molester lobby against landlord rights (our November 9th posting) or, the funding of the Baltmore ACORN from local funds so that they can tell pimps how to engage in sex trafficking of underage girls (our September 23rd posting).
Or just put it in the trash. If any other fallout occurs, please advise via the comment box. Thank you, and again - congratulations! You have made your concerns known to the Archdiocese CCHD, and they have taken note!
More on Manhattan Declaration
I've done some more digging into the "Manhattan Declaration". I learned that the three principal draftors were Robert George, Timothy George (I don't know if they're related) and Chuck Colson. I've no doubt that these are fine, well-intentioned gentlemen. I believe only Robert George is Catholic. I also downloaded the declaration into a Word document to do a little looking.
In response to inquiries I made to people who are enthusiastically promoting this effort, all they could, or would, tell me is that "Bishop So-and-so or Mr. Prominent-Prolife-Leader signed it, so it must be ok!" Some of them even implied that I had sprouted an extra eye ball in the middle of my forehead for daring to question what appears to be a herd-mentality stampede towards who-knows-what. This highlights one of the big concerns that I have regarding this, well, fad. How do we, as thinking, rational Christians and Catholics, arrive at our decisions? If we say that a course of action is the way to go simply because some prominent people are going that route, then we are in effect letting them do our thinking for us. That sort of abdication of personal responsibility cannot be morally acceptable in my opinion. Now understand that I'm not questioning the decision per se as much as I'm wondering about the decision-making process.
I am a Catholic and a pro-life activist, and have long been going out in front of abortuaries to offer witness along with some good friends. We go out in all kinds of weather. Occasionally we're mocked, assaulted and even threatened with arrest. We're no strangers to the rough-and-tumble; we aren't wimps. I agree with the statements in this declaration that we may have to engage in civil disobedience, as we cannot obey laws that are inherently contradictory to those of God. I will point out, though, that such statements are to be found in Evangelium Vitae.
I do find serious fault with this declaration, though. That fault lies more with what it doesn't say. It lists many social and moral ills: abortion, divorce, gay lifestyle. But what is the lynchpin to these sins? Hint: Humanae Vitae. As I said, I downloaded it into Word and did word searches. There was no mention of the words "contraception", "contraceptives", "birth control". Why this omission? Please don't tell me that "opposition to contraception is peculiar to Catholics". That is patently false! Until as recently as 1930, all Christian denominations understood the intrinsic evil of contraception. That ended with the 1930 Lambeth Conference. Even the Washington Post, in an editorial during that time, lamented the resulting societal destruction that the embrace of contraception would bring (back then, there must have been sane people at that helm). If this document is being touted as some statement of foundational principles, it is seriously wanting. As far as I'm concerned, the omission of the contraceptive mentality as a precurser to all the other problems is a deal-breaker for me. I've no bones in saying that those who hold contraception to be a "minor detail" are very short-sighted.
"But all the pro-life leaders say it's ok!" (I can just hear some say). Do they? If we insist on playing "who's who" here, shall we look at the whole picture and notice who didn't sign it? Some names that we all respect are missing. I don't see Fr Euteneuer of Human Life International. I don't see Fr Pavone of Priests for Life. I don't see any of the Scheidlers from Pro-Life Action League. Nellie Gray's name is absent, as is Judie Brown's and Pat Buchanan's. Realizing that what I downloaded is a few days old and that they could have signed between now and then, I checked their respective websites and saw no mention whatsoever of this Manhattan Declaration; I interpret that as a sign of them not being on board. I'd suspect that they were approached for support. Do we not see support because of the gloss-over of contraception? That possibility shouldn't be lightly dismissed.
As I said earlier, I certainly believe the drafters have the best of intentions. However, I would advocate some independent reasoning here. The Manhattan Declaration is somewhat problematic and is certainly no silver bullet.
In response to inquiries I made to people who are enthusiastically promoting this effort, all they could, or would, tell me is that "Bishop So-and-so or Mr. Prominent-Prolife-Leader signed it, so it must be ok!" Some of them even implied that I had sprouted an extra eye ball in the middle of my forehead for daring to question what appears to be a herd-mentality stampede towards who-knows-what. This highlights one of the big concerns that I have regarding this, well, fad. How do we, as thinking, rational Christians and Catholics, arrive at our decisions? If we say that a course of action is the way to go simply because some prominent people are going that route, then we are in effect letting them do our thinking for us. That sort of abdication of personal responsibility cannot be morally acceptable in my opinion. Now understand that I'm not questioning the decision per se as much as I'm wondering about the decision-making process.
I am a Catholic and a pro-life activist, and have long been going out in front of abortuaries to offer witness along with some good friends. We go out in all kinds of weather. Occasionally we're mocked, assaulted and even threatened with arrest. We're no strangers to the rough-and-tumble; we aren't wimps. I agree with the statements in this declaration that we may have to engage in civil disobedience, as we cannot obey laws that are inherently contradictory to those of God. I will point out, though, that such statements are to be found in Evangelium Vitae.
I do find serious fault with this declaration, though. That fault lies more with what it doesn't say. It lists many social and moral ills: abortion, divorce, gay lifestyle. But what is the lynchpin to these sins? Hint: Humanae Vitae. As I said, I downloaded it into Word and did word searches. There was no mention of the words "contraception", "contraceptives", "birth control". Why this omission? Please don't tell me that "opposition to contraception is peculiar to Catholics". That is patently false! Until as recently as 1930, all Christian denominations understood the intrinsic evil of contraception. That ended with the 1930 Lambeth Conference. Even the Washington Post, in an editorial during that time, lamented the resulting societal destruction that the embrace of contraception would bring (back then, there must have been sane people at that helm). If this document is being touted as some statement of foundational principles, it is seriously wanting. As far as I'm concerned, the omission of the contraceptive mentality as a precurser to all the other problems is a deal-breaker for me. I've no bones in saying that those who hold contraception to be a "minor detail" are very short-sighted.
"But all the pro-life leaders say it's ok!" (I can just hear some say). Do they? If we insist on playing "who's who" here, shall we look at the whole picture and notice who didn't sign it? Some names that we all respect are missing. I don't see Fr Euteneuer of Human Life International. I don't see Fr Pavone of Priests for Life. I don't see any of the Scheidlers from Pro-Life Action League. Nellie Gray's name is absent, as is Judie Brown's and Pat Buchanan's. Realizing that what I downloaded is a few days old and that they could have signed between now and then, I checked their respective websites and saw no mention whatsoever of this Manhattan Declaration; I interpret that as a sign of them not being on board. I'd suspect that they were approached for support. Do we not see support because of the gloss-over of contraception? That possibility shouldn't be lightly dismissed.
As I said earlier, I certainly believe the drafters have the best of intentions. However, I would advocate some independent reasoning here. The Manhattan Declaration is somewhat problematic and is certainly no silver bullet.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Protect Montgomery County Pregnancy Centers! Act Now!
Our efforts to save the pregnancy centers of Montgomery County MD from a draconian attack by pro-abortion members of the County Council are underway. We will need the fullest participation and cooperation possible from every pro-life person in order to succeed.
The text of the bill has been updated slightly, so please read this; of course we would expect amendments throughout the process. The Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, who led last year's fight against granting special rights to "transgendered" individuals, has developed an excellent, two-sided flyer that you can use to educate your friends about this imporant matter. Download it, print it, email it to your contact list, distribute it - just get the word out.
Let's not put our heads in the sand when it comes to stating quite plainly that the Montgomery County Council is composed of rabid pro-abortion afficiandos. Maryland NARAL conducts its annual fundraiser in October in Rockville. In its 2009 List of Sponsors, five of the nine councilmembers are listed; see for yourselves (by the way - Ike Leggett is there, too). Duchy Trachtenberg, who introduced the bill, is up to her eyeballs in her entanglements with the National Organization of Women (NOW). This past June, Terry O'Neill, Tractenberg's Chief of Staff, was elected national president of NOW Upon her election, O'Neill did resign her position with Trachtenberg. By the way - while O'Neill apparently saw a contradiction in occupying both positions, such compunctions didn't seem to bother Trachtenberg - at least if I read this NOW webpage correctly. It states that in January 2007, Trachtenberg was both the at-large Councilperson AND president of Maryland NOW! We now examine this article, written by Dana Beyer, a current staff member of Trachtenberg's; in it, Dr Beyer denigrates good people (us) who dared to exercise our rights as citizens to combat the transgender-rights bill. It looks like I learned something new. Whereas I was quite aware of Beyer's affiliation with Equality Maryland, I was unaware, until a few minutes ago, that the good doctor was "Maryland NOW Action Vice President." Like I said, the entanglements are many and dense.
I could go on and on, but I think we can see that most of the council has vested interests in seeing this bill passed. Their duplicity is plain. Even the Washington Post, a newspaper that can usually be counted upon to jump on the pro-abortion bandwagon, took issue with this bill and made plain its opinion that it should be defeated. The Post takes issue with the inherent duplicity of the bill when it writes, "the proposed disclosure is too cryptic to be an effective alarm bell for many women and yet is suspect because it singles out pregnancy centers while absolving abortion clinics of any disclosure requirements regarding adoption or parenting options." They've got that right!
Again, please distribute that flyer. Contact the council (we'd suggest doing so by addressing Phil Andrews, the Council president; all communications to him will be diseminated to the other councilmembers). Attend the hearings on December 1st; and consider testifying. Write letters to the editors of newspapers. And above all, please pray! We'll keep you posted.
The text of the bill has been updated slightly, so please read this; of course we would expect amendments throughout the process. The Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, who led last year's fight against granting special rights to "transgendered" individuals, has developed an excellent, two-sided flyer that you can use to educate your friends about this imporant matter. Download it, print it, email it to your contact list, distribute it - just get the word out.
Let's not put our heads in the sand when it comes to stating quite plainly that the Montgomery County Council is composed of rabid pro-abortion afficiandos. Maryland NARAL conducts its annual fundraiser in October in Rockville. In its 2009 List of Sponsors, five of the nine councilmembers are listed; see for yourselves (by the way - Ike Leggett is there, too). Duchy Trachtenberg, who introduced the bill, is up to her eyeballs in her entanglements with the National Organization of Women (NOW). This past June, Terry O'Neill, Tractenberg's Chief of Staff, was elected national president of NOW Upon her election, O'Neill did resign her position with Trachtenberg. By the way - while O'Neill apparently saw a contradiction in occupying both positions, such compunctions didn't seem to bother Trachtenberg - at least if I read this NOW webpage correctly. It states that in January 2007, Trachtenberg was both the at-large Councilperson AND president of Maryland NOW! We now examine this article, written by Dana Beyer, a current staff member of Trachtenberg's; in it, Dr Beyer denigrates good people (us) who dared to exercise our rights as citizens to combat the transgender-rights bill. It looks like I learned something new. Whereas I was quite aware of Beyer's affiliation with Equality Maryland, I was unaware, until a few minutes ago, that the good doctor was "Maryland NOW Action Vice President." Like I said, the entanglements are many and dense.
I could go on and on, but I think we can see that most of the council has vested interests in seeing this bill passed. Their duplicity is plain. Even the Washington Post, a newspaper that can usually be counted upon to jump on the pro-abortion bandwagon, took issue with this bill and made plain its opinion that it should be defeated. The Post takes issue with the inherent duplicity of the bill when it writes, "the proposed disclosure is too cryptic to be an effective alarm bell for many women and yet is suspect because it singles out pregnancy centers while absolving abortion clinics of any disclosure requirements regarding adoption or parenting options." They've got that right!
Again, please distribute that flyer. Contact the council (we'd suggest doing so by addressing Phil Andrews, the Council president; all communications to him will be diseminated to the other councilmembers). Attend the hearings on December 1st; and consider testifying. Write letters to the editors of newspapers. And above all, please pray! We'll keep you posted.
Diocese of Wilmington: Pay Defrocked Priests, But Not Just Debts
From yesterday's Washington Times, we read of some very skewed priorities of the Diocese of Wilmington (DE). Some commentary is in order.
The diocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month. It had been paying retirement benefits to six priests who were removed from ministry because they were confirmed child sex abusers. They had agreed in court not to pay such benefits without court approval; but they are arguing for that approval.
In a Chapter 11 case, the debtor files for protection because it ostensibly is unable to pay its just debts. The creditors are barred from making attempts to collect monies due to them. The intention of these measures is to let the debtor reorganize itself so it can one again become viable and solvent.
In this case, we must question how on one hand the Diocese of Wilmington can claim that it is unable to pay its just debts while on the other hand pay pederast priests to do essentially nothing. One of the priests in question, Francis DeLuca, was actually defrocked after serving a jail sentence for abusing his own nephew; yet the diocese is intent on paying him. Attorneys for the diocese wrote, "corporal works of mercy such as the provision of charity to Mr. DeLuca are fundamental to the Christian faith." Wrong, dear attorney! It is NOT a "corporal work of mercy" to essentially steal from creditors to pony the proceeds over to a criminal who most likely helped put the archdiocese in its financially-precarious position (let alone rape his own blood relative). It is no "work of mercy" to violate the Seventh Commandment!
Barbara Dorris, an official with SNAP, writes, "it is morally wrong for a church official to put helping child predators ahead of helping child victims." I don't find myself agreeing with SNAP often, but I do in this case.
The diocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month. It had been paying retirement benefits to six priests who were removed from ministry because they were confirmed child sex abusers. They had agreed in court not to pay such benefits without court approval; but they are arguing for that approval.
In a Chapter 11 case, the debtor files for protection because it ostensibly is unable to pay its just debts. The creditors are barred from making attempts to collect monies due to them. The intention of these measures is to let the debtor reorganize itself so it can one again become viable and solvent.
In this case, we must question how on one hand the Diocese of Wilmington can claim that it is unable to pay its just debts while on the other hand pay pederast priests to do essentially nothing. One of the priests in question, Francis DeLuca, was actually defrocked after serving a jail sentence for abusing his own nephew; yet the diocese is intent on paying him. Attorneys for the diocese wrote, "corporal works of mercy such as the provision of charity to Mr. DeLuca are fundamental to the Christian faith." Wrong, dear attorney! It is NOT a "corporal work of mercy" to essentially steal from creditors to pony the proceeds over to a criminal who most likely helped put the archdiocese in its financially-precarious position (let alone rape his own blood relative). It is no "work of mercy" to violate the Seventh Commandment!
Barbara Dorris, an official with SNAP, writes, "it is morally wrong for a church official to put helping child predators ahead of helping child victims." I don't find myself agreeing with SNAP often, but I do in this case.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Manhattan Declaration - Caveat Emptor!
I'm getting all kinds of emails, gushing over this website http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/. When I go to it, though, I can see no signs of its origins.
Warning flags are flying all over the place regarding this website. I did a "whois" search on it, as I am always leery of these highfalooting-sounding things that seem to bear no names nor signs of ownership. It is registered to a fellow named Reuel Sample of Knoxville TN. I found his personal web page http://rsample.com/about/ He is now director of something called Fellowship of Ailbe in "the Celtic Christian" tradition. Here's that website http://myparuchia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2675&Itemid=214 It does bill itself as a parallel to Roman Catholicism.
So those who've signed this so-called "Declaration" have just given over their information to a very questionable contact data base. As far as I'm concerned, this is a rotten apple.
Remember when, right after the Obama election, we had "petitions" popping up out of the woodwork, claiming that if you didn't sign their particular petition, we'd go to hell in a handbasket? At that time, I could count on receiving at least 4 of them every week. They were only attempts to collect contact information for databases. Now think - just what tangible, essential good will this "manhattan" thing bring us that nothing else can? Folks, I don't care who signs it; their prominence or their fame is irrelevant to the merit of the manhattan thing. If anyone can show me where they've done due-dilligence research (as I have) and can show me tangible proof that this thing is worth all the hoopla it's getting, I'm game to listen. Until then, I'd advise folks to start taking a more skeptical look at these things and not to glom onto any old thing out of fear and desperation.
Warning flags are flying all over the place regarding this website. I did a "whois" search on it, as I am always leery of these highfalooting-sounding things that seem to bear no names nor signs of ownership. It is registered to a fellow named Reuel Sample of Knoxville TN. I found his personal web page http://rsample.com/about/ He is now director of something called Fellowship of Ailbe in "the Celtic Christian" tradition. Here's that website http://myparuchia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2675&Itemid=214 It does bill itself as a parallel to Roman Catholicism.
So those who've signed this so-called "Declaration" have just given over their information to a very questionable contact data base. As far as I'm concerned, this is a rotten apple.
Remember when, right after the Obama election, we had "petitions" popping up out of the woodwork, claiming that if you didn't sign their particular petition, we'd go to hell in a handbasket? At that time, I could count on receiving at least 4 of them every week. They were only attempts to collect contact information for databases. Now think - just what tangible, essential good will this "manhattan" thing bring us that nothing else can? Folks, I don't care who signs it; their prominence or their fame is irrelevant to the merit of the manhattan thing. If anyone can show me where they've done due-dilligence research (as I have) and can show me tangible proof that this thing is worth all the hoopla it's getting, I'm game to listen. Until then, I'd advise folks to start taking a more skeptical look at these things and not to glom onto any old thing out of fear and desperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
