Ted Kennedy Takes on Tom Delay HE CAN'T BE SERIOUS! April 1

After Terri Schiavo's death Congressman Tom Delay, a valiant soldier for life, issued a strong statement about our judicial system which has lost sight of its purpose, to defend innocent life, above all else, suggesting that changes were in the offing if at all possible. The word violence was nowhere to be found in his brief statement.

Never at a loss for misstating the facts and disguising the actual issue at hand, the erstwhile Sen. Ted Kennedy weighed in with an accusation, telling Delay not to delay in retracting any notions of violence he may have been threatening. Imagine that one! If stating that one wants to use the Constitutional powers granted to Congress, is an act of violence, then Kennedy is the most innocent of lambs, since he has spent a lifetime doing everything within his power to make sure the Constitution is twisted for a leftist agenda. He neglected to apologize for all the acts of violence he is personally and directly responsible for: the millions of tiny babies slain in the womb. Now those are truly acts of violence! Hypocrisy? The word does not accurately convey what it ought in his case.

Another equally profane expert said that Delay was threatening to go outside the Constitution because he alluded to what is surmised as changing the jurisdiction of some courts. But this is in the Constitution. Congress mandates the federal jurisdiction and not the other way around. Now we know why there has been a concerted effort to "dumb down" the schools so the populace is ignorant enough to fall for this subterfuge and chicanery.

Get ready folks, for the next round of lies and double talk in a steady barrage. We are at war once again.


The Media and the Papacy DOCTRINE CANNOT CHANGE April 9

During the past week the media has been broadcasting and writing from Rome with a frenzy. This is the first passing of a Pope that occurred when there was such a thing as 24-hour news coverage, so we can hardly blame the media for the many inaccurate reports slanted to favor those forces in the Church that are not friends of Tradition and those that were mere mistakes. Overwhelmingly the reports were respectful, immensely so, and I did not observe any malice from the reporters themselves. Any rancor against the Church came from the dissidents and modernists who have the attention of the media, not only because these spokesmen for the "liberal" cause provide "conflict" but also because Traditional Catholics are an unknown quantity to them. The media by and large is unaware that we are here and here to stay and that until the incoherency unleashed by the unprecedented, non-dogmatic council, Vatican II, we comprised the majority of Catholics: that to be a Catholic, was to stand with Tradition, period. It still is today, although most Catholics are unware that is how a Catholic is to conduct himself. Those few point men and women in the media who are also practicing Catholics are almost always of the more modern or worldly stripe, even if they do not realize it as individuals. Perhaps they are innocents, poorly catechized with no bad intentions, just as most Catholics in America are. Journalists, whether Catholic or not, do not grasp that the Church that Jesus Christ, our Sovereign King and Savior founded is unique: it is the Kingdom of Christ on earth, and cannot be compared to any human institution because it is of Divine origin, however weak any particular [human] Church prelate may be in the discharge of his duties granted by Divine commission.

While I am very grateful for the dignified tone, the unstinting effort the media made to be gracious and thoughtful, something we Catholics rarely see today, I found myself growing increasingly annoyed to the point I said "Enough!" A few talking points for the media folks:

• Most of the dissidents you interviewed are mostly irrelevant. Fr. Richard McBrien and Mary Hunt and her cohort at the Woman's Ordination Conference are passé.  Their kind is dying out because the laity who are like them are contracepting themselves into oblivion. It is just a matter of one generation, actually. All of their nostrums that center on "change" have either failed or brought death to parishes, not life for the Church. The feminization and homosexualization of much of the power elite in the Church have not invigorated her, but caused a diminuation of grace so that Churchmen, in non-dogmatic statements [which have no guarantee of infalllibility] are looked upon as trying too hard to be up-to-date with a loss of credibility and decreased church attendance. If truth does not matter, why should anyone bother with all the commitment it takes to be Catholic, especially if it appears that it no longer matters even if one is Catholic. Reckless Churchmen tossed about on the winds of change consenting to rash statements out of weakness or false pride do not draw those seeking the truth about salvation to them. An uncertain trumpet cannot call anyone to conversion, a certain and radical process. We saw this first in the Anglican and some other "mainline" Protestant Churches. The decline therein is at least as bad as it is in the "updated" Catholic Church. So we ought to have known better, but Catholic modernists are the very sort who by the time they get around to acting out their agenda, it is already irrelevant. What irony! There is nothing so unbecoming and embarrassing than a prelate who is ten years out-of-date precisely because he considers it his duty to be up-to-date.
  

• In the English-speaking world, only those prelates, priests, nuns and laity who adhere to and who defend Sacred Tradition are growing and bursting with life. Traditional seminaries have a waiting line for admission. The convents have beautiful, young Brides of Christ and by the score. In fact the only growth spurt in the "First World" as you put it, is Tradition. Yet you failed to have a single spokesman for Tradition. I know you think you did, you may have intended to do so, but you did not. Priests from the Catholic Information Center, Opus Dei, the Legionnaries of Christ, no matter how enthusiastic and earnest, the priest from the "God Squad", and many others, are not Traditionalists, as traditionally understood within the Church. Some of the morality they espouse is traditional enough and they do not favor women priests, in other words, they are what you refer to as "conservative", but this is not Tradition per se. You failed to interview one Traditional priest who offers the Roman Mass exclusively. This is the kind of priest, the very priest that will be part of the Church's "salvation" precisely because he knows he is not about modernizing the Church, but serving Christ as Christ wills to be served. Worship is not a man-made propositon but is Divinely revealed. Whenever the Israelites disobeyed God in the matter of worship they were punished, read the Old Testament. The Traditional priest knows as St. Paul did, that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, that it is not a "slam dunk", as some of you put it, that is, just being kind, nice and popular and personable and "giving" and "open" is not the stuff of Sainthood in of itself. Some Saints were not personally popular with their confreres. Some were shy and retiring, some were viewed as cranky or standoffish. But what they had in common was true humility [as opposed to false modesty or the humility of the moment] and the love of God above all else as He wants to be loved. There can be no true love of God without the denial of self, our self-esteem, our agendas, our desire to please others, and then, the upholding of His Eternal truth without compromise. Every Saint was willing to die for the Faith, even if he was not a Martyr in the strict sense. Being modern, changing with the times and with the world are so abhorrent that the Traditionalist-----someone who is what until recently almost every Catholics was-----is repelled by the very idea because he knows that God is repelled. He told us that although we remain in the world we must not be of the world. To change with the times on the eternal verities is one of the primary ways to be "lukewarm" the very thing that God warns about: the one He will "vomit out of His mouth".
  

• "Do you think that some doctrine will change?" I heard this repeatedly, the mark of ignorance or naiveté. Dogma is God's revealed truth as safeguarded and taught by the Church in her teaching capacity. She has three powers from Christ: to teach, to govern, and to sanctify. She teaches His Eternal truths, and truth by definition cannot change, this is why Truth is called eternal. And truth is His, not the Church's. The Church has no power or authority to change any doctrine or dogma. These have the character of infallibility and immutability and are not "made" by the Church, but declared and defined under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Any attempt to change a dogma would be utter blasphemy! Not to say also heretical! Now since we human beings have small minds, when compared to the intellect of the Angels, we learn slowly and sometimes grasp truths with great difficulty. This is what the development of doctrine is, from an implicit understanding to a deeper, more explicit one. But this is not change as change is properly understood.

• A dogma is like a precious diamond, which has many facets. As the diamond is cut and refined and polished, its value increases, but its very essence, its "diamondness" does not change. A diamond does not become another gem, because it cannot. It was meant to be a diamond. As it is cut and recut so that it takes on more facets its beauty is enhanced and more fully appreciated, but it is still what it is-----a diamond. This is how Truth is.
  

When we speak of Truth, we are not speaking of something thay may be either true or false, that is a fact, a logical truth with a small "t". It is a fact, that it is raining one day and not raining the next. The event of raining is not Truth or ontological and moral, Truth with a capital "T" although it is true when it occurs. The Truth with a capital "T" is that if it rains or does not rain, it is because God wills it this way, using the forces of nature, His instruments, which He created and oversees.

Now the diamond is truly more beautiful when it is cut one way and not the other, but it still remains only a diamond and nothing else, despite the various uses for a diamond. In the same way dogma can be polished so that it is better appreciated and valued more, but its essence, the truth of what it declares about a reality as designated by God remains.

• Contraception will always be a mortal sin, in vitro fertilization will always be a mortal sin as will euthanasia, abortion, perverse or unnatural sexual acts.

• The Pope has no power whatsoever, no matter who he is, to approve of women "priests". Pope John Paull II wrote an encyclical, Ordinatio Sacredotalis, about this matter in which he stated that the subject was closed, it is not to be debated as God has not granted such a power or authority to him or any Pope to change this Divine arrangement, period! You journalists pride yourselves on all your behind-the-scenes investigating, so why did you not do your homework? Ordination of men only is a matter of doctrine, not discipline. And it has nothing to with the equality of the sexes. No one has a right to ordination, not even a man. Ordination is like a gift, it is not a right, just as no one has a right to a specific number of children, or any child at all. We do not say that a couple that has no naturally born children through no fault of their own is less married or less dignified in their marriage than the couple that has ten children because God wills it. Each child is a gift from God and He does not always give a child. And so it is with the priesthood:
  

The Church is the Bride of Christ and is "feminine" in that we refer to her as "Her" and Christ as her Bridegroom. Priests are "other Christs" and must be male because of the Divine plan for the Church. Women are not bridegrooms, but brides. Only men are bridegrooms and never brides. If you think this is mere symbolism you are wrong. Christ took on human flesh and became "Man". The Church, is incarnational in a most real way, beyond symbolism. To call for women "priests" is to call for the unnatural, in fact a kind of homosexualization of the relationship between the woman "priest" and the Church. It is that simple even if you do not want to hear it! Just as no man has an absolute right a priori to a specific bride [thus also the Bride], so no man has an absolute right to be a Bridegroom of the Church. Ordination is a special calling to only a few men out of many, not because these men are superior or naturally better, but because they as individuals are called by God to image Him on the altar of sacrifice. Men who cannot become priests even if they aspire to the priesthood, are not less in their dignity. A man does not choose ordination, he consents to it, as Mary consented to be the Mother of God made Man. The consent is a choice, but the origin of the being chosen is God Himself, Who does the choosing, not man. Only He knows why. "His ways are not our ways." God is the Victim in each and every Mass, in His human nature He died on the Cross in a male body, and the priest is another Victim or another Christ at Mass and by extension in all the other Sacraments as well. He does not just represent Christ, he actually images Him just as the husband and wife image the Holy Trinity by bringing forth children or by being adoptive parents or in some other way see to the special care of children, if that is God's will.

• "The Church changed its teaching on the salvation of the Jews." O what utter uncharity, what a calumny, what an insult, to God and to Jews. Jesus took His human flesh, His human nature from the Jews, His Mother was and is the Queen of all mankind, Heaven and earth, and in a a most beautiful way, of the Jews, her people. His foster-father, Saint Joseph, was a Jew and one from the same line, that of David. Anyone who utters such nonsense, such a blasphemous thing as to say the Jews need not convert is ultimately saying:

For two thousand years God let the Church wander in darkness and blindness, He let her teach error with the "help" of the Holy Spirit [the blasphemy involved] and only in this century has He decided to let us know: Sorry folks, you have been so wrong all these years, but now I am changing this and finally cluing you in. When St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face because he was mingling a little Judaism with Catholicism, well this greatest of the Apostles was all wrong. When I died on the Cross, the Temple veil was rent asunder in two. I did not go back there. I must have been wrong, too. When all my Popes taught no salvation outside of the Church and the necesity of Baptism, for the Jew as well as for the Gentile, well they were just plain wrong and hey, hey, I let them be. Even though they were faithful to Me, I decided to punish them, and now that you are being unfaithful to Me, I am rewarding you. Two thousand years of imposed error! When My Mother stood beneath the Cross in her sorrow for those long hours, and I said to her: "Woman, behold thy son," and to My most chaste Apostle, John, who stood by her, "Son, behold thy Mother," I was just wasting their time, as the Church was not necessary for them, but I deceived them, let them enter at great risk to their lives even, allowing her to be the Mother of all men and the Mother of My Church! When I commanded the Apostles to teach and to Baptize, first among the Jews who were like them, well, I was just leading them on although I knew they would be Martyred for a cause that was not necessary!

Anyone who utters such nonsense, such a blasphemous thing as to say the Jews need not convert is really saying: I hate the Jew! He is an anti-Semite and the worst kind! He is abandoning the Jew by patronizing him and by allowing the Jew who may be predisposed to non-converting, he is abandoning the dogma of the Faith, risking the loss of his soul and that of his Jewish neighbor. When I think of those dear, dear nuns who taught us catechism many years ago and how they taught us to cherish in a very tender, very special way the Jewish people, I blush with shame for such uncharity! When I look in to the face of the Jew, be he a child or a man, I see Christ, as I do with any man, but I also see Abraham who prefigured Christ. And when I look into the face of a Jewess, be she a child or a woman, I see Mary, but I also see Judith before her, a figure of Our Lady. And what I behold is most beautiful, indeed. It is beautiful even when the Jew belongs to that enemy of the Church, B'nai Brith and its cohorts in society. It is beautiful in a way it cannot be with the Gentile, just because it is this way. And my heart melts, even when I confront slander, blasphemy and lies and must not cower before it, must not surrender to unjust intimidation, my heart melts anyway, and I, but a poor sinner, too, know that I first must be converted, day by day, and that I must call the Jew to conversion, although an opportunity may not present itself at any particular time. I must love my neighbor as myself, in fact, more, because with St. Paul, I must count myself as nothing before all. If St. Paul was bound to convert and he is the least as he taught us, then how much more his fellow Hebrew or Jew who is not lesser? This is love, this is charity, this is even justice! Anything else is profane, extreme anti-Semitism and it is profoundly unCatholic, not just patronizing, not just a false compassion or cavalier sentimentalism. To love someone with your whole heart and strength is to tell them the truth that is necessary, because of the dignity they have, created in the image of God Who is all Truth, saving Truth. Sometimes God speaks through miraculous events, but His usual method is through us and He calls, is ever calling His Own people to Him through us. This is Divine Mercy at its most profound, in its very perfection . . .

Mr. and Mrs. Media, the Church has always taught no salvation outside of the Church, this is called the dogma of the faith. It is a revealed doctrine, which is the definition of a dogma, and it cannot change. It was declared infallibly or explicitly taught by four Popes and always believed implicitly from the very beginning. Just because a Vatican Congregation issues a contrary statement when the Pontiff is sick, old, and in pain, leaving much to his cardinals, does not make it so. Cardinal Ratzinger enjoys no infallibility as the Pope does. The Pope made some mistakes, some big ones by rash statements to various groups, but he never changed dogma formerly by declaration, simply because he had no power and the Holy Spirit keeps His promise. God may permit us to fall and make mistakes, because we are born with Original Sin, but He does not make mistakes, and when He said He would remain with the Church, the Church knew what this promise meant. This is Tradition and has been handed down from the first and will continue to be so until the last, Divine Goodness and Truth in its salvific perfection for the sanctitification of man and the holiness he owes his Creator . . .

The Media and the Papacy CHRIS MATTHEWS: MORE THAN HARDBALL,
IT'S HARD-HAT! April 20

The erstwhile Catholic pundit, Christopher Matthews, who hosts HARDBALL on the cable news network, MSNBC, had a field day "pushing the envelope" on some of the "social issues", specifically abortion and contraception, while covering the selection of Pope Benedict XVI. Matthews is among those who comprise the plethora of media Catholics who want to have it both ways, remain in good standing as a bona fide liberal, yet profess Catholicism, an impossibility. If he really believes the spiel he was dishing out, then he is lying to himself, and is therefore disqualified as a social commentator, who must deal with truth: I presume he does believe the way he talks.

Every guest who was commenting on the Holy Catholic Church was asked by him about abortion and contraception. He kept insisting that the then Cardinal Ratzinger had called for "the ex-communication" of abortion pols who claim to be Catholic, although guest after guest corrected him. It was as if he did not accept the facts as they are. If only his charge was true, but it is false, sadly. The former Cardinal Ratzinger merely told the US Bishops that they ought to instruct these errant politicians, and as a course of last resort, they ought to be denied Holy Communion. But he also left it in the hands of the Bishops, so it was a do nothing policy. Except for a handful, the American Bishops have no fire in their bellies for the harder and most necessary things of a life worthy of a Bishop. They do not want to be martyrs, the term "want" properly understood.

According to Matthews "the separation of Church and state" is so paramount that one has an obligation to set aside one's duly formed Catholic conscience for the sake of "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar" taking Christ's admonition out of context. No government or country has any right to murder the innocent, so a citizen not only has no obligation to render falsely to Caesar what is not his to claim, but that citizen, as a Catholic, must resist the claim. In fact this is his patriotic duty! To instruct the ignorant polity. In ancient Rome rendering to Caesar meant worshipping pagan gods or be fed to the lions. Moreover, the Catholic's first duty is to save his soul, not help his country go to Hell! As I always say the devil is in the omissions. Here Matthews carefully avoided the hypocrisy that most wayward Catholic pols have no problem practicing their "consciences" on the death penalty for the guilty, although they do not want to do so for the death penalty for the innocent baby trapped in his mother's womb!

To stop the bleeding from his bludgeoned conscience, he made the disclaimer that "abortion is a serious matter, and we ought to take it serious.  . . ." But apparently not serious enough. Now, my question to the HARDBALL hard-hat is this: What do you mean by "taking it serious"? If the baby in the womb slated for slaughter enjoys no legal protection as you insist must be the case, then you must actually think he is not a person or a human being. And if he is not so, then what is so serious? Why such hand-wringing over a non-crisis?

Of course, we all know that the baby in utero is a person, a living human being, created in the image of God. If we really did not think so, we would not have to hide behind euphemisms to silence our screaming consciences. And because we know this, despite our protestations by various means of language-manipulation and character assassination of the defenders of life, we acknowledge the "hard choice" the mother makes. O what lies we tell to pretend we are not telling a bigger one!

Matthews belongs to the School of the Doctrine of Relativity: he thinks that the Pontiff should disobey Jesus Christ, Who is Almighty God, and permit contraception. His rationale? Most Catholics commit it. Well, all of us sin at least seven times a day. Why not just ban the ban on sin? If his argument was morally sound, then we would have no speeding laws, because almost everyone speeds at some time, if they drive. But we all know why the laws remain: necessity, no matter how often the law is broken. Moral necessity on the law of holiness is even more vital: "Fear not he who can destroy the body so much as he who destroys the soul." Just as you and I have no moral right to endanger our neighbor's life by driving recklessly, so you and I have no right to lust, as lust is one of the seven deadly sins. It can kill the body as we all know, but it surely kills the soul.

The marital act of the making of a baby, the fruit of the love between husband and wife mirrors the Holy Trinity: the Father eternally begetting the Son and They eternally begetting the Holy Ghost. Every marital act must be open to the gift of life. Children are neither owed nor disowed as in an option. Children are great blessings from God and are gifts, unique gifts and His will is what matters, His rights as Supreme Creator, not our puny claims. To have a deliberately sterile marital act is to commit a kind of sodomy or the sin of Onan and is a form of perversion and unnatural. This is so fundamental to the moral life itself that if one misses here, it is a sure bet that sooner, rather than later, the rest of the moral law will fall, too. And it has and is as we look all around us.

Where did it start?

With Contraception, which justified abortion which justified more contraception, which justifies more abortion. Now we have children killing parents and each other just as we have mothers killing their babies. Rape has a lesser penalty than some tax fraud statutes. The loss of modesty is so widespread that even so-called family channels have commercials that are pornographic and shows where the heroes and heroines commit the sins of lust while remaining heroic. What used to be X-Rated became R-Rated and is now part and parcel of everyday life. Just look around you, how women dress in public, at work, in court, and at holy Mass. Just look at how many think it is permissible to cheat on an exam and how we have "dumbed down" educational standards so almost everyone can get a decent grade, rendering grades meaningless and on and on-----the list is endless and growing, with media folks using profanity, and course language, such as "Hell", "damn", and even our Lord's Holy Name taken in vain [by a so-called conservative guest], with no apologies, even after a duly recorded complaint. And I have not even mentioned divorce American style and homosexuality! That would take more than a column or two or three! The "pill" is our hemlock, but we have not so much as the wisdom of Socrates, let alone the Saints with their humility and  sweet docility to the commands of All Holy God and His will. We are willing to play HARDBALL against the moral law, the natural law by maintaining our hardened evil habits, like a "stiff-necked people" . . . we cry out "Lord, Lord," while constructing a golden idol for ourselves . . . Scripture teaches what is to follow . . . if we do not repent . . .

Pray for the conversion of Chris Matthews
and his cohorts in the media, who are legion.


False Comparisons JUDICIAL "ACTIVISM" AND HYPOCRISY
July 22, 2005

The nomination of Federal Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court by President Bush to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has brought out the usual list of suspects peddling the same hypocrisies.

Before we look at the main hypocrisy, that of false comparison, let us dispense with the lesser one from certain "conservatives". While not impugning these neo-conservatives' good intentions, it is imperative to observe that hypocrisy is not the exclusive domain of the liberal, even though hypocrisy is one of the defining hallmarks of liberalism.

Repeatedly the media "conservatives" were heard to downplay Judge Robert's "pro-life" beliefs by attempting to reassure the dominant liberal elites that he would not go against precedent so that his pro-life views were not germane. In other words, he is personally opposed but  . . ." The wonder of it all is that these conservative movers and shakers would want to come to the defense of such a nominee. This is not to say that their claims are accurate: they may be, however no one can say for sure. The point here is that if they truly believe this assertion, then they have no business supporting him, in the interest of restoring the Constitution to its natural law basis. If Roberts really is so lacking in a basic grasp of the natural law-----the implication of their statements, whether intended or not-----especially as a legally-trained Catholic ought to be, then he is simply not qualified, regardless of his eminent qualifications otherwise.

 Imagine going to such lengths to convince us that Roberts would not be willing to restore the natural law to the law! This brings us to the major hypocrisy, the one proffered by the liberals: that any judge overturning Roe v Wade would be engaging in "judicial activism", or "legislating from the bench".

Actually this hypocrisy, one of a deliberately false comparison, is two hypocrisies in one: First, liberals claim that the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution is no longer the guiding principle of judicial oversight, but that the Constitution is "a living document" that can change with modern needs, or the rationale for the original legislation from the bench, Roe v Wade. So even if they were honestly mistaken, their "principle" would at least hold when a "conservative" upholds it in practice, using their own standard, that is. Now since we know that it is okay for liberalism but not for conservatism, meaning, that after a liberal court practices "activism" the Constitution is no longer "living" but static, we know they are lying to us. 

They cannot have it both ways: either original intent of the Framers holds or it does not. If it does not, then the charge of activism is meaningless simply because activism has been unleashed in the need of modernity or the times, period! Activism is well, activism, that is, applying their definition.

Second, the restoration of the natural foundation to our legal framework is not activism but simply restoration. Let us use an analogy:

Let us say that I live in the country, in a snake-filled locale, where it is vital to maintain a trimmed lawn in order to avoid nests of snakes living in my yard, a hazard to me and any neighbor stopping by. One of my neighbor's lawn mower broke and the local rental store is out of lawn mowers, so he asks to borrow mine and I consent. After he has finished his lawn he has a dispute with a relative of mine and decides to punish me in a fit of pique by not returning my mower. Now I live on a fixed income with little discretionary funds and my lawn has grown to the point where the snakes are eye-balling it for a new home. I repeatedly ask him to return it since I am unable to rent a mower also. He refuses: theft, pure and simple. I ask the local sheriff to intervene by going with me to once more request the return of the mower. The sheriff is a chum of my neighbor and refuses to do his civic duty. I am left with two options, I can turn the other cheek and wait until I can purchase a new mower, some weeks hence [there is no time for a lawsuit], and have a snake-infested yard, a frightening proposition to an old lady; or I can use the necessity defense, enter his garage that he leaves unlocked, while he is at work, and take back my mower. While I could be charged with trespassing, certainly I could not be charged with stealing my own mower, that is, I was merely restoring my rightful property on my own because the law refused to uphold the natural law, which includes property rights. My neighbor in effect stole my mower, but I did not steal his mower, I took back mine. Anyone claiming I was a thief, comparing my action to my neighbor's would be making a false charge or comparison.

In the same way, putting the Constitution back where it belongs, on the foundation of the natural law, after this foundation was stolen from underneath it, is not "legislating from the bench" but the acknowledgment that that the former and actual legislating from the bench is null and void, simply because no Court can be invested with the power to abrogate the natural law, period! The law of the land would be as it was then, nothing more, nothing less. The various states would be unrestrained from enacting whatever pro-death laws their citizens wanted. Of course the various state courts could not uphold those laws if a case was brought before them for the same reason, but that is ontological reality. It is the state and national legislatures that enact laws; it is the courts who rule whether those laws are in violation of the overriding law, the natural law, or where the natural law does not apply, the original intent of those drafting the various constitutions.

Not only is this sound legal principle, from time immemorial, it just so happens to be basic Catholicism, from which the Western system of law is derived.


Pat Buchanan Was Right
August 13, 2005

THE CULTURE WAR: Degeneracy: 2 Decency: 0

In his book, WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG, Pat Buchanan talks about the gains of the left despite the apparent rise of "conservatism". The other evening I learned first-hand that no more research is necessary to demonstrate this. And  right in my own backyard, euphemistically-speaking. August has been oppressively hot so we decided to dine at a local "family" restaurant. The waitress was tops, the fish dinner superb, the new art display stunning and most appropriate: Maine scenes, such as the Portland Head Lighthouse; in fact this should have been the best dining experience we had had for almost a year.

At the next table, directly in full range of my vision was seated a young family of five, a doting mother and father, and three winsome children of various ages from 2 on up, all perfectly behaved. It was obvious that the parents were most interested in their children [a little boy and two older girls], the center of their lives, and the children's comportment and interaction with one another and their parents was simply exquisite to watch, in fact, they should have been the most beautiful aspect of that restaurant, that evening at least.

So captivated by the children was I that I did not notice the father's apparel until I happened to look up to catch the manager's eye-----I wanted to compliment the establishment-----and it was like a lightning bolt struck! I knew that Pat Buchanan was right, unfortunately, right in ways I do not think even he could have imagined when he wrote the book. The father wore a shirt emblazoned with a large, pornographic image of a certain kind of woman in a an unusual position-----and wearing, that is, not wearing, etc.-----all of which I cannot describe in detail without committing a mortal sin. The graphic was the full width of the garment, so large in fact I could not have missed it if I had cataracts. There were some words, but I do not recall the logo, I had to look away so quickly in utter shock, sickened, I could not wait to leave.

Now here is what appears to be a better than average family, no whining kids sassing the parents, parents with disciplined and very happy children, and an intact family as they say. Yet the head of the family, in full view of his wife, two daughters, and a young son soon to be old enough to be consciously aware of the image on his father's shirt, has no compunction or shame in sporting such an audacious anti-virtue in our faces and theirs. Not only is the fairer sex, womanhood, diminished by such a depiction, but what lessons will the son learn? I have seen rock themes, heavy metal, rap, and the Satanic on some shirts worn by a few passing members of a fringe societal element, but never by the father of what is a "normal family". That was the shocker. The Culture War: Degeneracy: 2 Decency: 0. The first round was won in my estimation by the cultural Marxists, as Buchanan calls them, when the elites redefined "free speech" and pornography using the high courts, to obtain what they would never have through the town hall process of local government. A normal family? Not for long . . .


"My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role,'' added Roberts, who is Catholic. "I will be my own man,'' he said.

THE NATURAL LAW VANISHED
WITHOUT A TRACE
October 5, 2005


With these stunning words, the so-called brilliant scholar of jurisprudence, John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, revealed himself to be but a pawn of the "Father of Lies" who goes about prowling the world, seeking the ruin of souls. If Satan cannot pull us his way, he devises a way to pull us to him by our own ways, that is, our pride in America's "uniquenesss" because of Original Sin. No greater and more brilliant stroke of genius was struck by the enemy of the Social Reign of Christ the King than the idea [ideas always have consequences] that religion, that is Christ and His One True Church, the Catholic Church, and by extension, those professing Protestants who honor Christ in public, cannot have a place in, or more accurately, His rightful place in society and its governance. That to be a good American, worthy of high office, one must "be his own man". Now, note that I say Christ and His Church, not Buddha, not Judaism, not even Islam, in spite of 9-11, as well as Paganism.

You might well ask, why? and how can you possibly know this, let alone declare it so publicly?

Elementary. No Jewish nominee to the courts is ever asked about the role of his religion or is a priori considered a risk if he appears to be devout, or observant. It would be considered "anti-Semitic". No Muslim has been as yet nominated so I am asserting my declaration with the fact that there are public schools in California where Islam is taught in such a manner that all the children have to fast and otherwise participate and there is no squawk or alarm from the usual list of suspects, the ACLU, the Bnai Brith, People for the American Way, etc. The American Way is anything but Jesus Christ to Whom the vast majority pay lying lip service. Ibid., for the Pagan god totem duly erected in the public square in a California town. As goes California, so goes the nation, this dubious claim to fame no longer being the purview of Maine, now just as liberal and for more than a generation, too. "Left" coast, "Wrong" coast, it is all the same now, except that California is considered more "fashionable" and far "richer".

Not only is the Social Reign of Jesus Christ not even a possibility in the minds of men, it is an anathema, a scourge, the great taboo! The beginning of His Social Reign starts with the Natural Law, the Divine Law written in the hearts of men by Almighty God, a very real entity that can be known by all men of good will through reason. And until two decades ago it was.

Apart from those pedestrian, non-brilliant, vain, blasphemous words of Justice Roberts, that appear at the top of this page, the most astonishing aspect of the Roberts' hearings was the absence of any real discussion of the Natural Law. It was as if it has vanished without a trace. But I should not say "as if" because it actually has been banished. We find it inconvenient, so we just simply put it out of our minds and off the table for discussion. As the US Supreme Court has so ruled in the last few years, each one of us "determines reality" on our own. Ontological truth has been banished, and with it the Natural Law. Man is in charge, not God. Man determines good and evil, not Almighty God: "a diabolical disorientation".

As recent as the Thomas' hearings the Natural Law was an important issue.  When was the last time you heard it being raised when the subject of the Supreme Court comes up in conversation or in debate? Poof, it is too divisive, begone Natural Law! I make the observation here that if our citizens were properly educated both at home and in school, the Natural Law would have been and would continue to be a natural [pardon the pun] part of the discourse of life and our public endeavors. We would still have God in our hearts, not just on the occasionally suitable tongue. It was easy to make the natural Natural Law disappear without a trace after years of neglect by design [not benign] for two generations.

The Natural Law is part of the foundation of western tradition. By banishing it we have officially and formally, albeit not officially acknowledged, cut ourselves off from our roots and are now adrift in the sea of Leviathan, subject to the "god" of Mammon, with all its willful contrariness, arbitrariness, injustice, the irrationality of the politically correct that keeps changing to suit the zeitgeist of the moment and the oligarchy in power. This is raw power and raw power always arrogates to itself more and more. Mammon's "god" is restless and relentless, never appeased. And so we elected a President who has given us an unjust war in Iraq with no end in sight, open, porous borders where the illegals outnumber the legal immigrants and are rewarded more so than not, Supreme Court nominees who are their "own men", and the continuance of "most favored nation" status to the evil regime of Communist China that brutalizes its citizens, especially its devoutly Catholic and or Christian ones. After all what are a few million Christians compared to a few million Muslims, right? We saw the same thing with Clinton in the Balkans. The one thing that is certain about the war in Iraq is that it serves to make the world safer for Islam and less safe for Christians and just about anyone else also. As if we have a death wish to annihilate western culture, with its roots in Catholicism [and Monasticism], once called Christendom. But I should not say "as if" because we do have an actual death wish and it was born with the "death" of the Natural Law and the willingness to forsake our God-given reason, for the sake of pragmatism and the "American Way." We prefer things our way: to accomplish this profane, and one of the great sacrileges, we employ our rhetorical genius to devise rationalizations for our perfidy, then congratulate ourselves on our brilliance, so much so, that we have surpassed Eve in the Garden, who at least still had need of a beguiling serpent to teach her lies. Now we can boast of teaching them to the new "Father" of our country.

We willingly turn our backs on God: is He now turning His on us? The chastisements will continue and soon we will know . . .


AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER
Maine's Loss of Resolve to Affirm God's Creation of the Two Sexes November 9, 2005

As predicted by all but one poll, Maine caved into the sodomite onslaught, finally approving by a 10 percent margin Maine's abrogation of the natural law that recognized but two sexes as ordained by the Divine law. Maine now has an unlimited number [because it is individually defined] of gender benders or special protection for abnormal behaviors that people may now call their sexual identity and under Maine law there is nothing you and I can do.

Travel will be greatly restricted for normal families because they will not be able to make use of most facilities in order to avoid exposing their young children to transvestites in the rest rooms. No normal parent will want to incur the need to explain this abnormality or disorder to children who must remain pure of heart that they may develop in a healthy way spiritually and psychologically. It is bad enough that teenagers may have to learn of this while still tender of conscience and pure of heart.

Just going to the grocery store, a necessity, could be a nightmare. As it was before one never knew when one would be assaulted by a sales clerk with multiple body piercings, some so hideous that one had to fight the vomit; in fact one has to do a reconnaissance of the checkout lanes before entering so as to avoid such persons. Now we will have to add total weirdness of a far more sickening kind of behaviors that enjoy protection in the public square. We will have to cut back on the food budget if we have young children because parents cannot bring them along for the same reasons as above. A baby sitter will have to be engaged and that fee will have to be deducted from the grocery bill because Maine also approved super bond bills to fatten the pork barrel thus more taxes sooner rather than later. Your local supermarket manager will not be able to refrain from employing these sad individuals if he or she wants to avoid law suits and worse. It is always worse behind the scenes. The sodomites left nothing to chance and when not applying pressure to get poorly catechized Catholics to relent they went around removing Pro-Family signs from lawns, in the dead of night to avoid capture. If they are this sneaky and underhanded without the law, what won't they manage with the law? All bets are off!

Maine's voting population is 25 percent Catholic. All the Bishop had to do was engage his flock instead of ducking for cover under a "You decide" phony neutrality. Of course he did not want to help us decide because he only undercut one side of the issue, the only Catholic one. The sodomite's activity he let alone with no disclaimer issued. He had deep reservations yet refused to rally his vast army in defense of normalcy and just plain decency. As one very concerned mother of ten remarked to me this morning, "Thank you Bishop Malone!" Meanwhile he will enjoy an exemption but you and I, supposedly just as Catholic as he is, will not. What hypocrisy and what cowardice! He abandons us and does not even have the natural heroism that good captains have of sharing the fate of their fellow sailors. No he joined the rats and has left the sinking ship in a special lifeboat granted by the homosexual elites in control while little children and their already heavily-burdened mothers and fathers are left to flounder in the choppy cold sea.

Perhaps we should band together and visit the Chancery all carrying large posters with the citation from

Matthew 18:6 ...

BACK----------MAIL----------SOUND-OFF----------NEXT

www.catholictradition.org/sounding-off6.htm