A Vigil for Mary Stachowicz:
The Story the Media Doesn't Want You to Know About
 November 14, 2005

The 3-year anniversary of Mary's murder at the hands of crazed homosexual co-worker, Nick Gutierrez, who beat and stabbed her to death and then stuffed her mangled body in a crawl space is being conducted in Illinois.  [He later prayed with Stachowicz' friends and family as they prayed and worried frantically about her disappearance!]  Gutierrez confessed to police that he killed Mary because she had urged him to change his immoral lifestyle, which reminded him of his mother. Consequently Mary paid with her life for her faith-----and Gutierrez' guilty conscience: she ought to be remembered and honored as an exemplar for the rest of us who are sometimes too cowardly about speaking up.

Peter LaBarbera of the Illinois Family Institute [www.illinoisfamily.org]
has written:
The reality today is that a growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as "prejudice," "intolerance," or worse, hatred.  The result is widespread intimidation of Christians and, in the most extreme cases, actual physical suffering and death for people like Mary who dare to live out their faith and not leave it behind in a church "closet" on Sunday. I can tell you from firsthand experience at IFI that the militancy of the homosexual activist fringe is rising as the PC societal embrace of "gay rights" grows. It will get worse if we don't speak out.
The media silence on Stachowicz is staggering-----especially after the mind-numbing (and inaccurate) hyped coverage of Matthew Shepard. They humanized Matthew as a symbol but they have little interest in humanizing a Christian victim (of a homosexual) like Mary.  We as people of faith must step forward-----just like the gay activists did for Matt Shepard-----and honor our victims, and remind the larger public of the lessons from these tragedies. We need to tell the media to cover Mary S. like they covered Matthew S. 
 At least we have our life; hers was robbed from her in an instant. There will be Memorial Mass in Stachowicz honor at 5:00 at St. Hyacinth before the vigil, and also throughout the day at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, where she volunteered.
email: PLaBarbera@illinoisfamily.org

The Denial of Right Reason
Pauly Fongemie, May 15, 2006

 There used to be a phrase brandished about in political circles, "plausible deniability." That was the clever rhetorical device of parsing phrases so as to convey the very opposite of what was actually true, while appearing to be scrupulously honest and forthcoming. There is little use for this contrivance today because people so easily believe lies that pretend the world is what they so desperately want to exist, that outright lies are the currency of public discourse. Hardly anyone bothers to deny anything anymore, at least for more than 24 hours, because he knows that it only takes that length of time for the matter to blow over when there are more lies about other or related matters to be considered, in a never ending cycle of distortion. A good example happened this week. A Mr. Bonner of the Border Patrol told the media that the US Government was providing Mexico with vital information about the Minutemen's position on the border. Because Americans want the border patrolled to prevent the illegal invasion, the denial from authorities was issued. A few hours later the backtracking had already commenced with one Border Patrol spokesman after another admitting that "some" information about the Minutemen was indeed being given to the Mexican authorities. First it was one kind, then another; in fact enough information was being given as to render it virtually possible for the Mexicans, who are anything but stupid, to calculate Minutemen strategic positions. In essence Bonner's veracity was established. Then President Bush said that although he intended to send a few temporary National Guard units [we are stretched thin in Iraq of course, protecting them] down to the border, he stressed to Mexico that we "were not militarizing the border." So not only are we giving vital information [an unfortunate law under American enactment and not yet abrogated by Congress----can you imagine waging World War II like this?], we are officially telling Mexico we do not intend to do what we are ostensibly doing. Who is lying to whom? Not President Bush. He is telling the truth for a change---he is going to pretend to do something, in other words. Right out in the open, he admits it. Will the American public let him get away with the treasonous charade? All bets are off!

Accompanying this abandonment of duty is the denial of right reason under the guise of "being reasonable" or "not going to extremes", extremism itself now under political suspicion; the notion is in fact a form of extremism, a type of vainglorious irony. Those 25-40 percent [depending on the poll] who want amnesty and or open borders, period, keep insisting that to enforce the just laws of the nation is a form of "extremism." We are supposedly overreacting about the border, migrant workers, as well as those who arrogantly dismiss a number of other urgent concerns.

Let us examine two of the catch phrases that seem to carry the day as substitutes for authentic arguments. I take them up in no particular order.

[1] A gentleman wrote a letter to a local daily's editor complaining of  "uninformed Christians", impugning those who do not want to and do not intend to see "The Da Vinci Code" due in theaters this month. It is the very definition of "adequately informed" about any particular issue that is at stake. His peculiar stance demands, in essence, that no Christian has any right to protest any questioning of his faith unless he consents to viewing and or reading any and all material pertaining or claiming to pertain to it. Of course the gentleman is either completely confused or completely dishonest. His demand simply cannot stand, in that he does not impose his own standard on himself. But apart from his transparent hypocrisy, must everyone who objects to an idea or a series of related ideas read all primary source material ever written on the matter before being able to come to a conclusion using his God-given reason? Or may he just use secondary sources? Is he permitted to take God's very word in of itself and standing alone? Or must he peruse all available material of both non-divine genre? If secondary sources are verboten, there go all the book reports and theses submitted by students throughout academia. Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" is a "primary" source based on fictionalized, that is, deliberately concocted 'secondary' sources or misapplied actual secondary sources. According to this critic of traditional Christians, they, in order to earn the credentials of the critic themselves, must be personally familiar with the primary source, either the movie or the book beforehand, period----even though Dan Brown admits he used secondary sources himself [violating the local critic's code of compulsion for Christians]----otherwise said Christians are misinformed in so many words. This is untenable and unreasonable. Under his rule of life no one would ever be able to: not read every pornographic magazine, not see every sleazy movie without forfeiting his right to his judgment that pornography is an evil thing. This of course negates the right to not listen to, to not read anything but what one ought to read, the right to not have one's soul polluted with filth and one's mind twisted by propaganda. There would be no need of criticism itself because the very purpose of professional criticism is not an intellectual exercise to demonstrate one's skill, but to evaluate various points of view presented in the entertainment media, to warn the public of danger to good morals or some inadequacy of concept, intellectually, historically, socially, morally, or politically. If everyone has seen the film or read the book in question for example, any general or private criticism that may ensue is pointless because the harm has already been done. This is particularly true with the image on a screen: it is almost indelible, and thus why it is considered so powerful for conveying ideas. Otherwise the movie industry would have gone the way of the Cracker Jack long ago: still there, bought and sold, "digested", but hardly still the topic of sensationalism when it first appeared in movie theater concessions. And as we all know not only is the movie business big business, it has generated another entertainment specialty, that of the movie critic, also big business. Every network has at least one resident critic, every news magazine and major paper the same. Now if the seasoned critic cannot be relied on to provide us with a modicum of reliable knowledge about the film he has reviewed, than he is cheating his audience and is an outright charlatan. The simple logic of this fact is inescapable on its face. But, of course, the gentleman in question fails to impose his rule on himself. That is, he has not read every Papal encyclical on books and films before he critiques the Catholic who is striving to sanctify himself and has no desire in seeing the "Code", period.

In fact the observant Catholic is not only not being "unreasonable" he is obeying right reason itself. Right reason is the faculty of drawing conclusions that concur with reality, not emotion or dismissive, politically correct slogans. Right reason tells us that there is a need for good movie reviewers for the very reason that people have a right to not have just anything take them by surprise in such manner other than they know serves a holy purpose. Someone has to assist us in not "casting our pearls before swine." Then, too, it is a matter of simple economics. No one can afford to see every movie before he rejects it as unworthy of his time. Absurdity! But as we have just said, most importantly we are here not to "just have fun" but to serve God and be with Him for eternity in Heaven. It is the sole reason He created us, to know Him, to love Him, our Creator, Who loves us enough to create us in His Own image. He gave us free will and reason, two of the faculties of the soul that render us above the animals. Free will is negated if we have no right to exercise it according to reason, always aided by His grace. Even the film critic or the book reviewer has to follow this natural law. In fact, he or she has to be especially on guard since there is a risk in such a profession. Unless one remains in the state of grace and implores Almighty God's daily help, the critic or reviewer ought not conduct such affairs. He must know it is a calling by God for the good of society or else he could be endangering his own soul. Most of us cannot engage ourselves in these endeavors simply because we have our own vocations. Thus we must rely on the good critic who observes the law of reason and the moral law.

I would be willing to bet that our local antagonist has not seen every movie ever shown at the local cinemas. I know he has not yet seen the movie he thinks we must see. How does he know if he himself has to see it before he decides? Yet he has already made his mind up. Whatever the reasons for his not seeing the other films, I presume they were properly the end of his use of some guidelines in order to determine whether he would see a film or not. He would of human necessity have had to rely on the knowledge of others, either of friends or family members who had seen a particular movie or a review of the movie. I would be willing to bet that he refrained from seeing "The Passion of Christ" because it was considered "too violent" and or "anti-Semitic". At the very least he did not write any letters to the editor telling the protesters of "The Passion" they were not informed. The editor would have jumped at the chance to publish such a letter. Now he simply cannot have it both ways. The next time you are confronted with this sort of violence against reason, ask your critic if he saw "The Passion" or some other pro-Christ as Christ truly is film. The verbal chicanery will be exposed for what it is.

[2] "They are an extreme cult; among the strange ideas they espouse are: children ought to be homeschooled, ought not to watch television; women should not expose their upper arms and legs and must have their chest [to the neckline] covered; they refuse to put their children in the public schools . . ." The statement you just read was part of a lengthy report on a cable news channel that was covering a case about an Arizonian polygamist religious sect. The rest of the report included detailed actual crimes of polygamy, rape and incest. Thus the American people are slowly being conditioned to think of people who dress modestly, who exercise their God-given right and legal prerogative to homeschool, who know that their children ought not be exposed to the 24-hour pornographic marathon of modern television from commercial to broadcast news, under pain of offending God as weird, bordering on the criminal, a bunch of "extremists" identified with rapists etc. Twice the reporter, in what seemed a hostile tone, emphasized that the polygamists did not like the public schools, the new suspect category of the century. From his point of view I guess you could say it is strange because it is the public [government schools] that advocate all sorts of obscene immoral sexual practices, from Two Mommies and Two Daddies ["King and "King"], to serial polygamy, the first being the sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance from God. If Two Mommies, why not three or more? So I can see why he does not understand the perspective of the polygamist Mormon as to the schools. I am sure the sect has its reasons. But this is not the issue, condemning by association all homeschoolers is. Except for the real crimes of rape, incest, and polygamy all the other "crimes" listed by the acid-toned reporter describe traditional Catholics and some Evangelical Protestants, too. There was a similar, almost verbatim report on another news channel the same day, minus the dress code spiel: the conditioning or the clouding of reason of regular secular or other affiliated folks against their Catholic and Evangelical neighbors is very real and ongoing. I lost count how many times homeschooling was labeled a form of "extremism". For sure these First Amendment bigots with a press card have no idea just how extreme they sound and are.

What is extremism? Who decides: only those permitted by the anointed elite to do so? Is extremism in of itself an evil thing to be avoided always? What is moderation? Can moderation ever be a bad thing, even a dangerous thing? Who decides when it matters? Who can be "punished" if they dissent from the media-driven orthodoxy?

For now, let us take but one example: People who are extremely good tend to become Saints. They do things like constant prayer even while working, make sacrifices for others, do penance and mortification, offer reparation for sin and sinners [which includes themselves] and above all render praise to God and thanksgiving to His will in total surrender. Many Americans consider this all out approach unnecessary and "extreme". I have been told by several others that it is "extreme" to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year and not do unnecessary manual labor and refrain from general shopping on Sunday. I can just imagine what they would consider all the rest above. In other words, it is an "extreme" position to seek to be a Saint to the point of actually doing what it takes to accomplish it. "It is okay to want to be a Saint, just as long as one is not 'extreme' about it." That is a precise quote from a self-described practicing Catholic said in my presence recently. The person who said this actually believes that a moderate approach is the only correct one. After further questioning I learned that "by moderate" the person did not mean the true moderation that St. Thomas Aquinas taught, but meant instead what all the Saints who wrote about sanctity warned us about: lukewarmness, the very thing that so offends God that He will "vomit us out His mouth." I propose to you, dear reader, who is the actual extremist in the legitimately Thomastic manner? The one on the way to Heaven or the one, objectively speaking, on the way to Hell with "good intentions" or should I say pretensions?

Extremism? It is also a matter of purpose, not the position of the one opposing it and not only means: that is, a just cause and a just means [at the very least necessary and licit] to attain the end. Any other view of extremism is, well, extremist, would you not say?

For instance, Christine Ross, former radio talk show host, has written [text in red]:

The constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that nations have a right to defend their borders and to defend themselves from invasion.
Additionally, the United States government has a moral and a legal right to defend its citizens from invasion.

U.S. Constitution: Article IV, Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Now that abortion has been decriminalized for many years, and the murder of invalids (euthanasia) has started, the USA is sinking deeper and deeper into anarchy with the illegal immigrant invasion. The illegal immigrants have committed countless acts of domestic violence to us, are fraudulently stealing our jobs, collapsing our health care system, and threaten the very unity and sovereignty of the USA.

Is it extreme for our government to protect our border from invasion, and our property? After all, we are using a just means, hardly lining up illegals and shooting them or refusing to provide them with necessary food, shelter, health care, and warm clothing until sent back to their homeland. But the open borders cabal would have us doubt right reason itself and our own motives, even our very Constitution, the cited section above which satisfies social justice according to Catholic teaching.

All ideas have unintended consequences. Those proposing them and manipulating the war of words among other immoral means, so as to gain enough power to put them "legally" into practice are responsible for the bad outcomes that can be logically foreseen in the light of past experience and the proclivities of human nature. So, strictly for the sake of following the amnesty [in affect open borders] approach, let us see where it logically leads us, given what we already know from President Reagan's well-intended but failed amnesty policy. Instead of the estimated twelve million agitating through various political organizations for amnesty we have now, we had about three million in the eighties. Essentially what Reagan did was to reward those who had consistently and persistently broken the law, regardless of his intentions. Rewarding en masse those who flout the law without regard to individual circumstances sends a signal not only to those affected that breaking the law for some people is an advantage vis a vis other groups, that justice is not blind and impartial. It also encourages more of the same behavior it rewards. Human nature, naturally enough. The United States should have taken a closer look at a large enterprise that had done the same thing and its virtual suicide by implosion: the Catholic Church in America. After years of pressure from dissidents and the disobedient, it snubbed its obedient members and gave into the demands of the former simply because they had long-established themselves in bad practices that were already becoming "institutionalized". I am speaking of course of Communion in the hand and altar girls. The dissidents knew that once they gained a victory in these the rest would soon follow if only they kept the agitprop up as indeed they have. Conditions deteriorate by the year. Feeling abandoned and betrayed by their shepherds and the Pontiff in Rome who had promised them otherwise, the obedient and faithful, being human also, followed the law of human nature: they learned to mistrust the Vatican and with this came an alienation that has not yet been healed, if it ever can in our lifetime. Betrayal is, well, betrayal is it not? The Church in America with the aid of the Vatican can betray its faithful members and a country its long-suffering citizens----victims of injustice at the hands of their own leaders sworn in office to protect their lives and property. It is worse in the country than in the Church. The latter's "citizens" cannot select their leaders and Martrydom is expected of the true Christian, although ideally it is supposed to come from the enemies of Christ without not within. But with the country its citizens do select their leaders, who owe each of their constituents allegiance also, not simply the other way around. So the betrayal is especially hard to take, the grave injustice duly noted, not for revenge, but for self-protection, again human nature and a human right actually. In the Church the betrayed can go underground, pray to Saints who were bishops and popes and continue on in some semblance of normalcy if one can call being a veritable refugee normal. Yet Maryrdom for the faith is the normal course of the Christian in a world of apostasy. But where can the betrayed and abandoned American of generations go? Essentially he becomes the actual alien, despised for his patriotism, in his own land, while the alien takes on the mantle of "patriot." Martyrdom in America is an odd, fleeting thing, its value and meaning changing with the winds of politics and the politically correct, punitive, vindictive atmosphere of the moment.

Again, for the sake of argument let us agree to agree that the vast majority of illegal aliens have good motives for coming here in the dead of night, mindless of whose property is being overrun, etc. In fact I do believe they are largely of the most innocent of people exploited by big businesses and small and the ruling elite with an agenda, which is not germane to the exercise of thought here. However, let us merely stipulate this to dispense with its need to continually impose itself in our agumentation.

Now, if it becomes the law of the land to grant various forms of amnesty [de facto if not de jure literally by name], in practical terms an open border with Mexico, for the sake of economics, which appears to be the motive for the majority of those aliens who are flooding the labor pool, and if such practical application becomes accepted over time, is seen as a matter of simple Amercian "justice" and compassion [however misplaced], then it will naturally and with certainty become a matter of injustice to prevent other waves of aliens to enter, if not through Mexico which strictly enforces its border, through massive boat lifts timed to be so large as to prevent our weakened resolve and reduced police and military forces from rebuffing the invasions, over and over again. Outsourcing will not be the problem, insourcing will. Millions of Muslims, Hindi, and many many other groups, all demanding amnesty for economic reasons, sanctuary and conferred "citizenship". All within a few years. What do you think will be the outcome? Even the most inane liberal, the most unthinking, politically naive American Catholic knows the answer. Then they will clamor for something to be done and it will of course be too late with the country in total meltdown as a nation. Not to mention the tragic irony! They will then claim so morally superior as they clamor now for amnesty etc., that they have lost their way of life as they and their family are reduced to less than third world status, replete with the resurgence of diseases once stopped by penicillin that are now so virulent the Black Plague will seem a blessing in comparison. And we, whom they have so cavalierly consigned to the non-compassioned, boorish American version of isolation for having the disease worse than Hanson's, that of defending their homeland from any and all invasions, both military and non-military variants but always militant, will receive no apology from the haughty and arrogant as they claim they have the right and the duty to stop the invading hordes. They will not be able to have it both ways. A right once surrendered is surrendered, period. They cannot claim that we have no such right while they retain theirs for later. Our crime in their eyes? We want to prevent what can still be prevented. Their failure in the short years to come? They will not be able to prevent what can no longer be prevented. The weeping and gnashing of teeth and in all probability enough Muslims voting to have Muslim law the law of the territorial imperative. That is, if the Communist Chinese have not taken over economically holding us captives to the almighty yen. If only our compatriots could see us now! Our enemies are salivating at the prospect. As for me, fortunately I will no longer care about being maligned as a hard-nosed extremist for defense of the defensible because I will be in my grave, which is no comfort to me at all because I am fighting less for myself and more for the next generation yet to be born. Note well, my dissident Americans, you have been----with passion and in truth----duly forewarned and I can do no more as I have no power to do so. Counting not the cost I refuse to surrender my duty to God and country.

Then in this coming chastisement perhaps you will at last turn to Christ the King and carry His standard into final battle, as I and others have been advocating for so long a time while you turn a deaf ear, ironically calling us "too" American and not Catholic "enough" and yourselves the ideal Catholic Americans, not comprehending reality at all. Many and wide are the paths to infidelity and ultimately treason, when the goals justify the means, but few are the paths of patriotism when the patriot is under suspicion and as a matter of conscience must follow the Divine and natural law. I close with Christine Ross's statement of Catholic teaching and in conjunction a little surprise:

The constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that nations have a right to defend their borders and to defend themselves from invasion.
Additionally, the United States government has a moral and a legal right to defend its citizens from invasion.

As many of you know I do not always agree with FOX NEWS' Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Their defense of their Catholic faith is less than stellar but their defense of the nation is nothing less than spectacular. If I were President, no, if I were Queen, I would be proud to award them the Medal of Freedom for their unwavering patriotism and service to the country they lovingly call home.

  Humpty Dumpty
Filed by Pauly Fongemie, Columbus' Day, 2006

The childhood rhyme goes,

"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
And all the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty
Together again!"

As as I was contemplating the Disunited States of America in the Year of our Lord, 2006, on the holiday that still honors that great Catholic who is enshrined in history but who died in oblivion, Christopher Columbus, what kept coming to mind was the old childhood verse. Columbus, an Italian, came to find land for Queen Isabella of Spain, and to evangelize for Holy Mother Church, not for personal gain or fame. His honor and name have been besmirched by anti-Catholic bigots who know nothing of history, care nothing about history, except for that kind of "history" they can rewrite to match their prejudices. Even Catholics who ought to know better, but do not, join in. I wonder just how long the powers that be will permit the name Columbus to grace another day off from work and little else for our bread-and-circused to death citizens. But that is the least of our worries as Humpty Dumpty can attest.

Last week should have been the week that never was, but always seems to be, one more time again. But then, it is impossible to imagine things any other way after two and a quarter centuries of democracy, a most reasonable sounding proposition, but actually a truly unnatural arrangement that defies all of God's creation.

The beginning of October was anything but festive: the Republicans, through their beleaguered House leader, Hastert, boasted of a fence for the border, but the fence is not really as promised and never would be as those of us who have learned how to read between the lines knew all along; and again the by now cliché cover-up of a cover-up, the sordid Foley affair, filled with irony upon irony: the Dems demanded resignations and the investigation of Republicans, which could have been welcomed and even applauded but for the just as sad fact that the very Democratic operatives parading their outrage for the public were the same ones who conveniently overlooked the reality that they did not seem to mind the pederast, the late Jerry Stubbs of Massachusetts, given a plum assignment after a Congressional reprimand, which he refused to accept gracefully; and the reality that some of them gladly march in "Gay Pride" parades that feature NAMBLA, the pederast lobbying group. Hypocrisy does not begin to describe these shenanigans! On the GOP side hypocrisy was not lacking either, as the pervert Foley who championed the rights of children to be free of molestation was revealed to be a predator of underage House pages. The even more unbelievable irony was his claim that he had not had "sex with a minor" because it certainly was not for the lack of trying, but merely his failure to entice anyone that we know of yet. Imagine making a virtue out of a lack of predatory success! One scarcely knows whether to cry or to scream! What a convenient side show for the folks who will not wake up to the fact that there will be no border security until it is too late and we are no longer a sovereign nation. The leader of the patriot group, the Minutemen, who are the only ones doing anything to safeguard our country, besides the John Birch Society, was roundly abused physically and the assaulters are not under indictment. In today's America the patriot is the enemy and the enemy is courted and feted as if heroic------which reminds me of St. Paul's warning about end times when the good will be called bad, and the bad, good. One inversion after perversion to herald the invasion by hordes with no intention of assimilating or obeying the law until they have a majority to change the law for their own purposes.

 American citizens have no idea, simply because the major media will not inform them that Bush & Company with the connivance of the Mexican "firsters" of both parties and all parties and no parties, are planning a North American Union like the European Union, complete with superhighway, a repressive economic re-alignment that will impoverish most of us who still have morals and with the inevitable super court that will impose international law on Christians in essence because only die-hard Christians will refuse to go into this harsh, Fascist nighttime. But even if they did know, would it matter, enough? There is now but one party party politics, that of oligarchism-anarchism. You can read all about in the New American magazine, copies to purchase available HERE. This issue is a must read if you want to be prepared! You are also referred to Prison Planet's web site for much eye-opening reading that exposes all the fraud perpetuated on the American people regarding the so-called "Al Quaeda" network, the North Korean ploy and much much more, just in case you are still under the impression that the United Sates is an authentically free and sovereign nation.

How did the demise of America come about? The unnatural arrangement, otherwise known as democracy. There is no such natural entity as democracy, which is another name for chaos, by the people, for the people, in the name of the people.

All of creation, all of Heaven is a hierarchy, and within all created members of hierarchies there are hierarchies that make up the one below the one above. The Angels have nine; the elements are composed of sky, water, earth and in turn the land is divided in a hierarchy of layers just as the sky is and as is the water. All plants and animal life consist of hierarchies from least to greatest or small and one-celled to large and many-celled. Even our own bodies are not a democracy: not all constituents of the human body are equal, and must obey the commands of the head; when this fails to take place we give the phenomenon various names signifying a disorder, depending on the pattern; when the brain fails, we give that, too, names signifying disorders. Families and society are hierarchical in nature and cannot function otherwise for long without disintegration and chaos. God has appointed a head for the human family and set the the hierarchical arrangement for all of His works. The soul is composed of lesser and greater faculties, the virtues are hierarchical and of the theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, the last named is the greatest. In Heaven the hierarchies of created things do not include the first two virtues because there, there is no need, but Charity abounds and fills Paradise. However, the Saints are hierarchical from least to greatest in merit. On earth even identical twins are born in sequence and not precisely together; they, too, experience a hierarchy of birth time. The Holy Mass has its zenith or high point and Mass itself is divided into High and Low Masses, Masses by class designation, etc.

"Democracy" is a figment of man's egotistical imagination whereby he attempts perfection of society on earth, forgetting just how insidious a thing Original Sin is and its effects. Certainly it can be posited that our Founders had no regard for the rights of Christ the King, but for the rights of man. If it had not been so, He would have been given His due by society and government and not a free-for-all set of "Churches", under the freedom of religion doctrine, a secular, pragmatic tenet in reality and not one in accord with the rights of God, His Church, His right to rule on earth as well as in Heaven.

Democracy is a defilement of original nature, a creature of man, and not of God and has its own corruption built-in, just as the laws of science detail the erosion of nature since the fall in Eden. It cannot succeed as envisioned by its champions, although it succeeds quite magnificently by its own internal design. When everyone is "equal" in theory and the practice tends to force this, at least for some, those who are politically preferred, no one is ultimately responsible, as it is plausible and possible to pass the buck on and on and on as we are witnessing in public life, in high and low places, ala Foley, "the devil booze made me do it" "my past made me do it". "We knew but we really didn't know how salacious." And so forth. Now since even nature itself knows that this is a lie, vice pays tribute to virtue by conjuring up the usual suspects, that is, the scapegoats, modern life's sophisticated, quasi-religious ritual. After all, if there is no meritocracy, but only expediency and pragmatics, the American method of non-self-government, whereby cheating is rewarded and virtue rendered suspect, denial and cover-up is the new art of "state craft". That is to say, it is virtually impossible for most citizens [excepting practicing Christians-----coming soon to a locale near you courtesy of the new Neros] to betray their country, simply because the country perennially de facto, if not de jure, betrays its citizens instead! And to accomplish this impudent audacity those in power have convinced a plurality of us to help them achieve it! This is called the two-party system where we pretend there are real alternatives, not merely those of style and rhetoric. But an irresponsible, non-responsive oligarchy, is an oligarchy. See, even a democracy needs its hierarchy, nature will out. When was the last time your Congressional Representative or Senator actually answered a letter or phone call? Remember when we used to receive the usual form letter back? Now there is not even that pretense. Are you listening, Senator Snowe-job? We are taxed but not represented at all.  We are here to serve them, period.  As long as we are entertained and side-lined with media circuses [and carnal cake galore], we won't care about our demise and the lies that beckon us onward to receive it. Heck, even an incompetent monarch could and would serve us better!

Am I saying that all monarchies are good? Of course not, because a monarchy is only as good as the monarch. But I am saying that monarchy in of itself, is natural, and in the hands of a good monarch is a good and natural thing for the government of mankind; in the hands of a competent and devout [virtuous] Catholic monarch, a great thing! Are we not supposed to be ruled by Christ the King? And, I am saying that democracy is not a good thing in of itself and in the hands of renegades who have their own commandments and who defy their Sovereign, Christ, is even worse than a not good thing, it is a disastrous thing and we are in its grip for worse, not better. There is nothing we can earthly do to make what is a delusion real, or what is disordered, ordered, no matter who we elect. Recall when we put our hopes in Frist and Santorum and a few others? Before the glow was awaning they had betrayed our [misplaced] trust by compromise. Democracy at best is the art of compromise and at worst, what we are seeing now, pandering to evil itself. Where the rights of God are concerned and His appointed economy or arrangement of creation there can be no compromise.

The Democrats are Humpty, trumping and humping their moral superiority and the Republicans, Dumpty, dumb and dumber all the time, and they cannot put us back together again, because we really never were, it was all smoke and mirrors under patriotic rituals and sloganeering. From the very beginning the USA as founded by the lovers of democracy was doomed to dissolution because toleration itself is an illusion. Even the purveyors of "tolerance" are intolerant. They seem to be the only ones who know there is no such thing as tolerance, that is the kind we operate under today; they surely do not operate with "tolerance" as they insist the rest of us do. Just us stupid folks afraid of their disapproval who practice it to our own detriment! Where God does not rule as Supreme, sinful, carnal, selfish man fills the vacuum and takes everyone else with him because we are all in this together: we are a "democracy". Today there is no tolerance for truth, common sense, rationality, virtue, and self-control. So now we have no choice but to be subjected to lies, distortion, factoids, injustice in the name of justice, irrationality the norm, the normal discarded for the abnormal, and vice of every kind rampant and running amok.

This column is an exhortation to prayer, continual, unceasing prayer, for the coming holocaust cannot be stopped, it is a runaway train out of man's control, set in motion by man's pride and only prayer, not action, can prepare us to maintain our faith and save our souls, all that really truly matters if everything else is lost, all that ever really matters, period, no what what historical period or condition we live in!

Of Mice and Men: "Poetical" Justice
Filed by Pauly Fongemie, November 8, 2006

Well, it's a rout for the Republicans, and I can say that it could not have happened to a better breed of mice. Elephants are supposed to be afraid of mice as the legend goes but for several terms now we have had elephants who turned into the thing they feared most. The boondoggle over safeguarding our border to the south and ridding the country of that hideous, immoral abnormality, abortion, should have been top priority for Congress, since the GOP----the elephant herd----held the balance of power. As usual the not so grand old party had grown fat on its own version of pork, largesse at the trough, corruption and taking us regular folks back home for granted, telling us, one election cycle after another, "take us or leave it, we are the only game in town, you have no place else to go, don't waste your vote and on and on . . .".

Oh, I am under no illusion that the majority voted the rascals out of power on the above basis, in fact those issues that were supposed to figure so heavily, except in a couple of states, didn't even register on the richter scale of anger. It was corruption and Iraq, worthy causes all the same.

One key senatorial state, Pennsylvania, could have been maintained by the GOP on the abortion scandal alone, one of the few exceptions referred to, but oh so illustrative of what happens when pro-lifers get burned once too often: sometimes they actually wake up. Santorum deserved to lose by the margin he did, the number roughly equivalent to truly pro-life non-compromising voters. Santorum, climbed down from his elephant when he decided to become the water boy for the Bush team. He did not have the wherewithal to affect micedom. Mice at least know how to take care of themselves and can be quite resourceful when need be, as those of us who dwell in the countryside know all too well.

After water boy betrayed the pro-life candidate who was challenging the rabid abortion-approving Sen. Arlen Specter, in order to help the Bushies beat down life once more, thereby securing a seat for one of murder most foul's best friends, pro-lifers in the Keystone State had finally had enough. Then, when the going got a bit rough and tough for slick Rick, what did Bush do to show his gratitude and loyalty, the loyalty he is said to hold so dear? He turned his back on Santorum as a lost cause. After all, once a useful idiot has served his purpose, well, that's that. Poetical justice, you might say, pun intended: poetic and political blended together. One treason meriting another. There is no honor among thieves and traitors either, it seems.

The Democratic sweep is demonstrative of another now undeniable fact, one that I have been writing about for years, despite the claims of various polls that say Americans favor less abortion in general and at large. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the majority favors is that the whole matter just fade away so they do not have to deal with the conflict that always rears its incessant, inconvenient head whenever human creatures suppress the natural law in their hearts, hoping to have things both ways. The fact that so many voters pulled the lever based on outrage and anger tells me this:

If the people----apart from Tennessee and Pennsylvania----really wanted to outlaw the scourge of the slaughter of innocence and little innocent ones by the millions, that is, if abortion really fueled the fire in their belly, we know they could just as easily pulled the lever for pro-life candidates, after working to make certain that such candidates would be on the ballot in the first place. It's called self-governance, initiative, pun not intended, vigilance, and just plain American decency, which we used to have in abundance. Making accommodation with mortal sin on such a massive scale weakens the will on an even more massive scale.

There is also quite some irony in this bitter lesson:

Justly outraged about the unjust war in Iraq, the American voter made a bad bargain, trading one war for a far worse one,  a trifecta: war on the middle class, and more war on the helpless preborn if that were possible, and war on nationhood itself.

Folks, when you make a Faustian bargain, be prepared for those of us who sounded the alarm that went unheeded, to say,

"You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

  November 30, 2006

The "Holiday Season" in the home of the politically correct and the land of the free for the chosen few is upon us once again. Corporations, government schools, and meddlesome bores of the atheistic kind, who have nothing better to do, vie with one another to see who can come up with the most insulting but imaginative way to ban Christ from Christmas, all in the name of "diversity", you understand. If the honor of Christ, our Savior King and God Himself were not involved it would be to laugh and laugh again. Every year things just get sillier, sometimes with the assistance of those claiming to champion Christ. This year is no exception.

FOX News channel's Bill O'Reilly has weighed in concerning the latest outrages against Christ, and His image during the Christmas season. Now Christmas means Christ's Mass, literally. Remove Christ, no Christmas, but mas, or should I say mess, period-----just a cheap facade co-opting the sentimentality that human beings have attached to the festive aspects of the Holy Day, only expanded into a profane holiday because of the American habit of excess in all things, especially if financial profit can be gained. Truth be told, America does not have a Christmas Season, she has a Shopping Season. Now O'Reilly's intentions are very good, he wants Christ in Christmas, but he goes about this holy task in a wholly peculiar, secular manner, which only serves to further desacralize Christmastide, in this case the prelude, or Advent Season.

He claims that because we are a secular country, we cannot bring religious motivation into public affairs. We cannot use theology, in other words. So he plays into the enemy's hands by informing his audience that we must refer to Christ as a philosopher and Christianity as a philosophy only. Well, who needs the ACLU and Atheists United or whatever the heck their title is? Bill is better at this game than they are. Oh, the ACLU is very clever at weaving arguments against Christ and only against Christ-----they never attack Menorahs, just Mangers-----but inept in human nature as cowards tend to be. The more the elites attack Jesus Christ, the more fervent we traditional Catholics and Evangelicals become. We are even gaining converts. People who never paid much attention to Jesus Christ before are suddenly fascinated and looking into His teachings. I suppose we could just leave the deicide cabal to its dirty deeds and reap the converts, but God has warned us what will happen at the judgment-seat if we do not defend His honor, so we must. Thus, every year it is one step backward for Jesus as He is banned from the bus, not just the back seat, hither and thither, and one step forward for individual souls who accept the gift of faith.

Now along comes O'Reilly to confuse the folks. How do mean, you ask?

Well, I reply, the definition of philosophy according to the American Heritage Dictionary [how's that title for irony?] is:

A speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge.

And the definition of a philosopher is:

A specialist in human knowledge and one who lives by a particular philosophy.

[It does not matter which one, take your pick, just so it is a philosophy.]

Now, how does this apply to Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity: Three Divine Persons in one Godhead, the only God, Supreme and All-Knowing?

Jesus said that He is the Truth. There is no need to speculate for Him as He possesses Himself in Eternal Perfection. His teachings concern far more than human knowledge, but Divine knowledge and precepts, which are revealed to mankind by a merciful God Who wills to save it from its sins. To reduce theology, the Queen of the Sciences because it concerns the revealed knowledge of the Divine from God Himself, to its lower sister science, philosophy, is to undermine the mission of the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ the Savior Who took on human nature and consented to be born in a manger. Christ has two natures, human and Divine. And to confuse one science which has a specific purpose with that of the other, which has another purpose.

A philosophy can not save, nor can a philosopher, only Christ, Who is God can and does save.

Bill insists that we cannot win the war for Christ unless we pretend He is a mere philosopher. Oh, he does not employ this precise phrase, but this is the essence of his approach. To see us so hamstrung and weak, so lacking in imagination and courage that this is the best we can come up with before the impious onslaught of Leviathan, is to embolden the enemy further. If we are willing to compromise now, it will be easier the next time. Actually, if we all rally to the O'Reilly whoops-cry, the ACLU will have to retire early and just sit back with its feet up and watch what is left of Christendom evaporate as God withdraws His grace from the likes of us, who would then have become more cowardly than the bullies in the public square. What good is a sentimental philosopher pretend God? Maybe a god that Bill creates for himself and others who follow him serves to serve their own idea of what is good for America, that winning is more important than the Truth. They in effect are banishing Him. As for me and my household only a God Who is the only God, Who is the Way, the Life and the Truth, will do, and rather than have Him serve us and our vainglory, it is we who seek to serve Him in all things, including this little riposte for Bill O'Reilly.

Pauly Fongemie, January 22, 2007

It seems that every anniversary of that dreadful day when America displayed its utter contempt for the precious gift of human life, Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, gets worse, if that were possible, especially since The Almighty, Holy and Undivided Trinity is still shedding a little light on us feckless ones, if only through technology, our new "theology". Such an innocuous sounding phrase, "Roe v. Wade", incompetent to convey the crime sanctioned, millions of little babies slaughtered, just like "the final solution" meant millions of slain Jews among others.

I guess I ought not to be surprised anymore, and here I was shocked and dismayed anew! I stayed awake on the eve of that infamous date to take in a segment of Sean Hannity's "Hannity's America", which airs on FOX News Sunday nights because he was going show the exquisite pictures of life within the womb, this time, twin sisters no less! Oh, the babies were more than beautiful, they were irresistible, one was drawn into the womb with them, to embrace them and be embraced by them!

The way Hannity conducted the so-called interview with a pediatrician, whose patients are babies and children, he would have been better off just letting the breathtaking power of the two babies in the womb speak with an unsung hymn playing in the background. But of course not! wake up, woman, remember you have the privilege of living in modern America where the more technologically skilled we become the more incompetent we render ourselves to think logically, if at all. Zombies with cell phones that take pictures.

The first inkling that the short [thanks be to God] exchange would not fare well for the sanctity of life was Hannity's adoption of the anti-life crowd's employment of the Latin term, "fetus", for unborn baby. Americans are not ancient Romans, we do not think in Latin, we think in English. We are living in ancient Rome, I suppose, we could say, because we are hurling ourselves into oblivion as a culture and society just as it did. "Fetus" while a perfectly acceptable medical term in Latin, has the effect of rendering the baby in the womb less that human, less worthy of protection of the natural and national law, to the layman, the purpose the enemy keeps using it.

Hannity once said on his weeknight program that he accepted exceptions for abortion-----the big three, I do not need to list them. Is this why he, who is so capable of asking penetrating questions on national sovereignty, is utterly devoid of reason when it comes to life itself? Because God has withdrawn His grace which gives light to the mind as well as nourishes the soul, because of compromise? I do not have the answer, but the question does not go away.

The debacle continued. After showing the babies moving in the womb he asked the doctor if it would be possible to use the technology in partial-birth abortions, that is, have it be part of the conditions to undergo before getting the abortion. She replied, "We can't force anyone to do something against their will." Hannity went on to another question after muttering some phrase, he did not even challenge her!

Let's stop right here and think, ask our own questions. Says who, I mean, who is "we"? And how so? Every four years in Maine we have to renew our auto license, which means going down to the local agency, a twenty mile trip or more for many of us, standing in line to take an eye exam. To receive our original license we had to study a booklet and memorize it, then demonstrate our driving ability to a state examiner. No one I know wanted to do this, but because we wanted the license and because we know it is for the common good, for the good of our neighbor and his right to life, we consented. From the human nature point of view it was against our will, but from the good citizen, very Catholic point of view it wasn't, because my right to freely travel is not absolute and because I value my neighbor as myself for the love of God. Now, driving is not precisely a "right" as rights are understood, it is more of a privilege since it is limited. Well, abortion rights are also limited even following the penumbracadabra of the Supreme Court in the last trimester and that the state could limit abortions. So in this regard abortion is not an absolute "right" to be accurate.

You would think that anyone faced with that nonsense about forcing people against their will could come up with any similar response. Heck, no one I know, not even the most rabid liberal, wants to pay taxes but we do. We do not want to go to jail. Against our natural will, but we permit the unjust farce of income taxes that benefit a hungry government and that impoverish families, because the alternative is pretty impossible for those who are raising families. Americans are forced to do all kinds of things a hundred times a day they "do not want to do."

Sophist Lie #1 is now dispensed with.

Hannity focused on late-term abortions, "when the fetus is more developed". Right! This means he has given up for all practical purposes on abortions done early on. Now, either the preborn baby is a baby or it isn't. It can't be human one minute and the very next, the moment of trimester change, be one. We exist from the moment of conception, period. My old college science texts pre-Roe all said so. We have made great strides in documenting the smallest human beings as they grow since then, so what was once believed under the natural law can now be shown through the law of science. Even the doctor said that the baby's brain is developed very early. Developed, but she never said never there in the beginning. All the genes that make up the human body are there at conception, human genes, not a monkey's genes, and neither a carrot, a human being. We do not film the tiniest person in the first few days of life because until a woman knows "she is with child" no one knows he is there but God, so this is not feasible. But he has to be there to be there when they do film him in the safety of his mother's womb, where he lives for the first nine months of his life.  Hannity should just have said baby, and abortion, and not mention trimesters in so many words. All the outrage seems focused on late-term abortions and references to infanticide. All abortions are infanticide, either in or out of the womb period. By psychologically ceding ground to the enemy on the inviolate sanctity of innocent human life through this inept focus does no good because we have so-called doctors who have bought into the abortion ethic such as this one appeared to be. As Hannity admitted to his audience, in response to her, "people have already made up their minds." I know that people think that this will alter public opinion but so far it has cemented first trimester abortions, while changing some opinions on later-term ones. Eventually the technology of killing will become so sophisticated that first term abortions will be done ever so more rapidly and easily that late-term abortions will not be used. But we will still have lots of killing, just earlier. The arguments are fundamentally centered on the natural law. America does not want to have this discussion because she does not know she is supposed to, because the natural law is no longer taught in government schools nor in the law schools. We are a people who willingly blinded ourselves long ago, so we see what we want to when a film taken of the womb is presented to us. It is less that we have made up our minds so much as we no longer know what a mind is for.

This is Sophist Self-Fulfilling Lie #2. Well if this is true, that people have made up their minds, then why have debates? Why have discussions aimed at changing people? Because people change their minds all the time and we all know it. We even say it is "a woman's prerogative." Dispensed with.

Sophist Lie #3 was a doozy: the doctor told the audience that taking these pictures might be dangerous for the baby so we perhaps ought not use them in conjunction with abortion. Let's see now, if we have this straight: Only women contemplating an abortion would be shown the image, but we ought not show it because we might be risking harm to the baby in the process. Fair enough, on the surface. Again the blindness of Hannity. He failed to point out that the woman is going to have the baby butchered anyway, most likely, so he is already in considerable and immediate danger. What is the comparative risk to the baby at this point? Actually dead or with a potential learning disability [they are not even sure of this, something about being left-handed]?

Well if it is so risky what is National Geographic and FOX News doing showing the film, advancing their viewership by using an evil means?  I suspect that the potential risk is in the mind of the squeamish doctor, or she would have refused to be part of the exercise at all. After all, if I know you stole money, I would not ask you for a loan, even if I was desperate.

Dispensed with.

Thirty-four years and counting, counting not just the depravity, but the incompetence of it all!