Liars, Weasels, Cowards and Poltroons

OK I know that some people who read this blog are tired of hearing me whine.  Well, that's fine, I'm tired of whining.  But I'm even more tired about having so much to whine about!

Yesterday, I brought up the expiration of the Indult for communion under both species to my Pastor.  I was told I had too much time to "research trivia".  Trivia?  Let's think abut that.  First, I greatly prefer receiving communion under both species--but it's not about what I prefer.  So don't get off on a tangent that I dislike the practice.   Rather think about this:  Schism is defined as the will and stubborn disobedience of Legitimate Ecclesiastical Authority.  The authority to regulate the Roman Rite rest solely with the Bishop of Rome.  We derive our Catholicity from our communion with a bishop who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.  If our bishop is in any way impaired in his communion, so are we.  Since 2005, every bishop in the US has been in disobedience by allowing the unrestricted distribution of Communion under both species. In as much as they are being disobedient, we are then in a kind of impaired communion.  It is not juridically impaired, but the damage on a basis of disobedience does exist.  And just to sweeten the pot, I was taught that I had a responsibility to continually deepen my knowledge of the Faith, and is in pursuit of this I find things that clergymen don't want us to know about, think about or discuss, the fulfillment of this responsibility becomes a search for Trivia?  Did I just get told not to study and learn about the Faith, because it's inconvenient to have an informed laity?  Perhaps not in so many words, but certainly in the intent.

However, there is more to it than this--there is the question of integrity, a question upon which the bishops of the US have been failing for years.  In the 1970s, Cardinal Krol told the Bishop's Conference in the US that they were determined to sanate every abuse, instead of correcting them, and he was right.  Americanism lives on, in vibrant health, among American prelates. We have for a decade been under the cloud of episcopal complacency, and even cooperation with evil in the cover-up of priestly abuse of minors.  We were told it was fixed, and now we see a bishop indicted by a grand jury for that very action.  We also can no longer deny that our bishops lie to us--a lot.

Take the Communion under both species issue.  We were not told it was done by an indult--we were told it was a change in practice.  Not being told that this was an indult issued ad experimentam, with an expiration date, we were also not told when it expired.  And when it expired, the practice continued.  By not telling us, our bishops removed even the possibility that most of us would even have the option of requesting obedience to the Holy See!

Then there is the issue of the Catholic campaign for Human Development.  This is not a charitable outreach--it's "charter" in fact forbids the funds for being used for relief purposes of the poor.  It is, pure and simple, a case of political activism, inspired by Saul Alinsky's followers in the Church--and no that is not rhetoric--Alinsky was a consultant to the Conference when it was set up.  It is a vehicle for political activism with a distinct bias towards the Left.  In fact, after two years of lay opposition and exposure, the bishops said it was being cleaned up, because it's grants were going to organizations to that worked against Church teachings directly, or were in affiliation or cooperating with groups that did.  Well, it turns out that in 2010, the last year for which complete data is available, 24%--that's more or less one in four--or grant recipients from CCHD, were still working against Catholic teaching, or were affiliated or cooperating with groups that did.  We've been lied to again.

Then there is the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship.  This document, issued in 2007 was supposed to clarify the hierarchy of values that should guide a faithful Catholic in voting.  It hit the streets, and was immediately co-opted by groups such as "Catholic for Obama"--a group declared by the bishops to be non-catholic--and "Catholics for a Free Choice" (now known as "Catholics for Choice") as a way to say that the church was emphasizing the values they wished to emphasize.  The document was not strongly worded enough  to prevent this.  The same document, unchanged, has been re-issued with a new introductory note.  This note cautions against distorting the hierarchy of values.  This in in a time when not only the continued legal murder of thousands of children a year is at stake, but even the freedom of American Citizens to object to it, or to refuse to cooperate in it.  Moreover, this is in a year when both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are attempting to redefine "religion" in such a way as to exclude most forms of outreach and evangelism from the legal protections religion has enjoyed in the US.  Yet the supporters of Obama's regime are very happy with the new document.  That's because it is insufficient to communicate to the faithful the hierarchy of values, and the necessity of voting like Catholics.

The Chancery of the Archdiocese of Louisville, I have been told by a parish administrator, is telling parishes not to speak of this at all, because that would be an endorsement of political positions, and would bring down the wrath of the IRS.  Not True--one cannot endorse a  candidate, but one can speak of the moral considerations of voting, and the complete teachings of the Church, and point out that contrary to Modernists and Dissenting statements, conscience is not supreme--a conscience formed in accordance with the faith is.  More lies.  Moreover, we are not about money and position, we are about salvation, and letting people continue on a path that is manifestly leading to perdition because you are afraid of the government is cowardice.  So we have lies and cowardice--simple poltroonery.

Canon law allows for the excommunication of politicians who support manifest evil--such as abortion--yet the bulk of elected Catholic officials do support abortion, and are still allegedly "Catholics in good standing.  Nancy Pelosi, who has publicly misstated and distorted catholic doctrine, and who histrionically cries that opponents of abortion want to see "women dieing on the floor"  has not been excommunicated, or even censured in a meaningful way.  Kathleen Sebelius, who was an elected official, and has been appointed Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services not only vociferously supports abortion, but has drafted and is promulgating regulations that effectively cripple the Church in our efforts to provide social outreach and who has said that she is "At War" with those who oppose abortion, contraception and sterilization is also a "Catholic in good standing" with no canonical action taken against her.  The bishops use straw man arguments and appeals to "pastoral concerns" to justify their lack of action.  Just as they used similar verbal constructions to justify their inaction against child molesters, heretics, and virtually any other of the cancerous growths sprouting on the Body of Christ.

America Magazine, which calls itself  "The National Catholic Weekly" has just run an article on their website entitled "What if 'occupy Wall Street' Could be Attempted in the Catholic Church".  In this article, Tom Beaudoin, and Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Jesuit run Fordham University wonders if maybe their shouldn't be a similar event in the church, to "end the long Catholic winter" and to be a sacrament of "God's salvation in the here an now".  I thought that all the Sacraments defined by the Church were Sacraments of God's salvation in the here and now--you know, the result of the incarnation.   And Beaudoin is an associate professor of Theology at a 'Cathlic" university, one that does not have the Mandatum called for by Ex Corde Ecclessia. I haven't even heard of a a single bishop saying that America Magazine, needs to reform itself, or that it isn't really a Catholic periodical, or calling the Jesuits to task for such drivel.  Or even saying it is not suitable for parish reading racks or Catholic secondary schools.  Not to mention that Fordham is in a diocese whose Catholic elected officials are pro-abortion, and their ordinary hasn't acted on the calls and instructions from the Vatican saying such are to be excommunicated..That might make them feel unpopular, or be "divisive".  Never mind that calls to disobedience are by definition divisive.

Yet bloggers, like me, and many of you reading this, are often castigated by bishops, or diocesan functionaries when we write things like this essay, which point out what is going on.  For instance, Fr. Derek Turnham, communications officer for the Diocese of Stokely recently told a blogger that he felt blogging should be illegal.  Perhaps it's because of this--Turnham was Acting Director of Schools for the Diocese of Middlesbrough when bloggers pointed out that the organization "Connections" was being promoted in the Catholic Schools--an organization that promoted abortion, and arraigned it for girls as young as 14 without notifying their parents.  He's still a priest in good standing, with an office in the apparatus of a diocese.  He promotes murder.  Yet we get censored being uncharitable, or "mean spirited".  I think 'mean spirited' is another lie--code for "Oh Shit we can't argue against what they say, and it hurts our feelings that we are called to accountability.  As if the calls to accountability by the faithful could ever match the one they are going to get in the next life!  Rebuking the sinner and instructing the ignorant are not "mean spirited", they are among the Traditional Acts of Mercy.

But a lot of the bishops, functionaries and clergy don't like those acts of mercy--that's why we have the spectacle of Bishop Father Michael Rodriguez being summarily removed from his parish and transferred to an obscure post in West Texas for speaking--entirely in accordance with Catholic Doctrine and the example of the Saints--against gay marriage by El Paso Bishop Armando Ochoa.  or the confused and deliberately obfuscated situation with Fr. Pavone, where a bishop does things, says one thing, then does another, and attempts to confuse everyone.  Both bishops, by the way, are in support of illegal immigrants, despite the Churches clear teaching that immigrants must obey the laws and respect the culture of the nation they move too.  Hmmmm--a little cherry picking there, and certainly overemphasis on certain aspects of Catholic social teaching, and omission of others. How weaselish.

Father Gregory Corio, OFM Cap. recently said in the newsletter of the Shrine he is assigned to that Catholic politicians who support abortion are liars, when they say they are Catholic.  He's right.  What needs to be said as well is that many of our bishops, and the USCCB, are liars when they selectively decide what they will obey or enforce.  Many priests are liars by omission, at least.  The collective cowardice that goads them into that most amoral of modes, 'go along to get along", or to remain silent when a priest or bishop shows integrity and is punished for it indicts them all.

And in as much as our bishops disobey or ignore the Holy Father, our communion with the Whole of the Catholic Church is impaired. 

Bishop Finn--I would Rather Someone Kicked me in the 'Nads

I will not remove this article, but as of today, 29 Oct 11, I will say that even though I am angry about many things in the Church, this article is wrong on many counts, first among them, it was written without full factual data, and the press reports I relied upon left our certain circumstances--most importantly that Bp. Finn called the police when the problem first came to the attention of the Diocese, and they decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, yet Bp. Finn removed the priest in question from contact with children and public ministry.


So Bishop Finn has been indicted by a grand jury for violating Kansas law concerning reporting suspected Child Abuse.  Seeing as how the priest in question was found to have home made photos of minors vaginas and photos taken up the skirts of minors in December of last year, and he was immediatly moved out of parish ministry into another house, where her tried to convince a 12 year old girl to pose for pornographic pictures, well, yeah indict him.

For a priest to be moved out of parish ministry after diocesan authorities find his kiddie porn, well, i see now way for the Bishop not to know about it.  Especially seeing as how ABC is reporting that Finn has admitted to knowing about the pics since December, but didn't tell the police until May.

So why would I rather be kicked in the 'nads than hear this?  Especially as I have maintained that we won't get this mess cleared up until a Bishop does time for covering it up?  Simple--Bishop Finn had previously made a name for himself as a stand up , orthodox Catholic prelate.  I admired that, and though he was possessed of moral courage.  Instead, I find he's just a weaselly as Roger "The Dodger" Mahoney, and the whole Gay Lovin' Gang.

I am sickened by this--every time I begin to regain my trust in the Episcopacy, and in Priests, something occurs that reminds me of why I left the Church in the first place, and why I do not trust our shepherds any further than I can throw them. SOMETIMES, I HATE BEING CATHOLIC!  I hate the feeling that my Bishops not only think we in the pews are stupid, but lie to us.  And Finn lied, in the most despicable way--he made the right noises with his mouth, and did the wrong things with his hands, so to speak.  It's like a father praising and extolling chastity to his daughter, then cheating on her mom with the maid.  Guess which speaks louder.

I Liked Bishop Finn.  I liked John Corapi.  I liked Archbishop Kurtz.  I Liked my Pastor.  In fact, every time I meet a priest I trust, every time I read a priest or bishop I agree with, I am let down.  Bluntly put--in my dealings in the past with Bikers  they showed more personal integrity, by far, than my dealings with priests, religious and bishops.  The same with pot Pedlars.  That's a demoralizing realization.

I wouldn't be Catholic, except, as a matter of faith I have to ask--just as the Apostles had to ask--"Lord, where would we go? You have the words of Eternal life".  The more I see of the actions of the US Bishops, the more I have to wonder how seriously they even take their jobs, and the faith--if in fact they aren't in the service of an Institution as distinct from the service of Our Lord and His Church.  I want to cry.

I Call BS

Rick Perry is running for president.  His wife isn't running for any office. Why is NBC news spending as much time on Mrs. Perry as they have on the Iran/Assassination Imbroglio?  Barack Obama is president.  His wife is not.  Why does she get so much press coverage?

These women have no constitutional brief, no legal authority or responsibilities.  They in fact, don't count for much.  Why are we wasting time with them?

The Battle for the Republic

The Counter Revolution:  If the 2010 election marks a sort of electoral revolution, in which  the electorate not only repudiated the policies of the Obama Regime but the policies and old gaurd of the Republican Party as well, the wave of "Progressive" Protests mark the beginning of the counter revolution.  (Why do we let them get away with appropriating the label "progressive"?  Turning back the clock to the failed social policies of the 70s, or to the type of economic engineering of the failed Socialist states of Eastern Europe doesn't strike me as progress.  But then again, if you're driving a herd of bison off a cliff, the closer to the cliff you come, the more progress is made!)  The TEA Party protests led to fundamental change in the GOP, and drove the elections of '10.  Then, starting in Wisconsin, we say a "grass roots" backlash, driven by unions and community organizers try to reverse the will of the electorate.  Having lost in the polls, they wanted to win in the streets.  It's interesting to me, because the Bolsheviks did the same thing--they were an electoral minority that used street action to sow chaos and move into power--a move that led to a multi year civil war that virtually destroyed to society they were supposedly a part of.

In Wisconsin, the Unions, and various groups of progressive organizers, manage to get recall election started.  These elections resulted in wins by four of the five conservatives elected in the first place, and a narrow defeat of one of them.  Yet this isn't quite the even partial victory it seems, for Unions alone spent over $200 for each vote cast in their favor, the equivalent of a $12,000,000,000 national campaign.  Moreover, most of that money came from out of state.  All of it went to support a status quo that the average voter was sick of.

This sort of action is continuing.  The Occupy Wall Street event, and it's related events are a case in point.  They are far from a spontaneous,flash mob type event.  In fact, they are orchestrated by activists from the "Working Family Party".  This is not a baseless assertion.  In fact, this has been reported by Laura Flanders of Free Speech TV, which is a radical outlet that supports the event in question.  In fact, Flanders reports that WFP organizer Nelini Stamp has been working since "day one" to organize the event, and to "bridge the gap" between the "grass roots" people and "organized labor".

Speaking of grass roots, I've mentioned before about paid protestors.  Well how grass roots is an add of Craigslist, reading "Fight to Hold Wall Street Accountable!  Make a Difference Get Paid!"  The WFP ran just such an ad last week.  Where do they get there money?  Well, as an offshoot of ACORN, probably from people like Herb and Marion Sandler, who started the World Savings Bank, who paid ACORN close to $11,000,000 to organize mobs to protest those institution in competition with them in the sub-prime mortgage market (the one that melted down and triggered the economic downturn).  Or even from organizations that have something in common with the United Federation of Teachers, who ponied up $500,000 for a "spontaneous demonstration" against Charter Schools in Manhattan. The London Daily Mail has also noted what American Media outlets seem to miss--or just not report--The bulk of the unpaid protestors are the Children of privlege, toting $100's sometimes $1000s in electronic gadgets, wearing designer jeans that cost more than many families can afford to spend in groceries per week and owning up to atending exclusive, and very expensive schools, to include one contingent from Bard College, a school that costs over $200,000 a year.  (The Mail also published pictures of protestors with large rolls of cash, smoking pot while swapping cash, etc.)  This isn't grass roots, it's the spoiled children of the spoiled children of the 60s and 70s, hoping to have a groovy legacy of protest to share with their parents as a sort of lefty heritage thing.  Trust funders protesting the rich. How ironic.

The WFP has some interesting links to ACORN--the supposedly disbanded group, that was convicted of election fraud and had to declare bankruptcy.  Their headquarters address is the same as that of ACORN  in Brooklyn, and WFP's Executive Director is Dan Cantor, an ACORN operative of long standing.  The WFP is funded in large part by the SEIU--Obama's favorite union, and a supplier of his regime's foot soldiers.  Stephen Lerner, and SEIU board member has said--notice the quotation marks here--that he aims to "bring down the stock market".  I wonder who he thinks will pay his membership if the companies lose enough capital?   Lerner, on the 3d of October was already talking about going to the homes of the rich.  He described such tactics as "fun stuff".


The WFP remind me of Storm Troopers--in 2009 busloads of them went to the homes of AIG executives, after these same executives had received death threats.  This isn't protest, this is intimidation, and since it's organized, conspiracy, both being against the law.  If I were receiving death threats, a busloads of leftist Storm Troopers came to my house, some one would go to jail--either them, for intimidation and conspiracy, or me, for shooting them.  I know that i compared them to the Nazi S.A.--the Storm Troopers, but if you have any history, you will remember that the S.A. were the left wing of the NSDAP, and were suppressed after Hitler came to power because they were serious about class leveling and destroying the old order.

(I wonder how many of the members of the WFP are actually married and have families, and how many of it's officers actually worked real jobs, other than community organizing?)

This is a "counter revolution" in a very real way--the WFP is an ACORN offshoot, moreover, Obama was and ACORN operative.  But wait!  There's More!  The more is found in the person of Patrick Gaspard, Obama's White House Political Affairs Director.  Gaspard is a member of the WFP, and Wade Rathke, ACORNs founder, he was the Political Director for the NYC branch of ACORN, working for Bertha Lewis, who is now the CEO of what's left of the official ACORN.  If find it hard to believe that this is an anti-establishment event when a close advisory to the president is closely associated with the organizers of the event.

Besides, I've noticed that Goldman-Sachs doesn't' seem to figure prominently in the protest, despite it's record.  Not odd, when you realize how closely the company is associated with the Regime, or the size of it's contributions.

The most consistent thing about this movement is it's support for the re-election of Obama.  The insistence on it being a protest about the expiration of the 2% additional tax on the wealthy--in addition to the graduated income tax--didn't surface in any noticeable way until after people noticed the lack of clear goals in the protest.  This is about intimidation, and trying to stop the impending electoral defeat of the Obama Regime.

Just Noticed

I was reading the news this morning, when I noticed a link on the Fox news site to a "human interest" story about how they made Paz de la Heurta look so convincingly pregnant in a nude scene for cable TV.  Basically,  it's a dodge to put up pictures of her bare breasts and bottom.

I guess that's one way to distract people from how much the US News Media doesn't report on. Give 'em T & A.

You know, in the 40's when Germany and the Soviet Union were trying to erase Polish culture, and to eviscerate the loyalty to the Catholic Church that the Poles held--and which had been a cornerstone of Polish Identity for centuries-- one of the things that they did was to restrict the entertainments that poles could have to the lowest forms, alcohol, farce and sex shows.  Odd that the US press and media should be doing that to the US people, just to boost sales.

Islam and Us

I just deleted some twenty bookmarks accumulated over the last week concerning anti-christian violence by muslims world wide--to include the US (a man was beaten with a tire iron because some Mussleman thought he had insulted Islam.  Drove right up to his yard and beat him.).  I don't want the laundry list of violence.  I want to ask a question, instead.

Where is honesty in reporting from mainstream media?  Where is the moral outrage at the genocidal violence in Egypt?  All we normally hear is a little bit about "sectarian strife" and all kinds of sunshine about he "Arab Spring".  I mean, the AP carried a story about the violence against coptic Christians in Egypt two days ago--and I didn't see anything like it on the news, or in the paper--our news outlets have chosen not to tell a story, because it makes it hard to keep up their preffered narrative--a narrative that is anti-Israel, and in many cases anti Semetic.  I say this, because simply not reporting grossly anti Semetic acts is in itself an anti Semetic cover up.  And for several years, we haven't heard the whole story.

We didn't hear about the Musselmen in Pakistan shooting Christians last week in a land grab--a successful land grab.   And they press didn't mention that Christians in Pakistan were being denied relief during the flood, either.

Where are all those Feminists who are so concerned about the dignity of women, when the students at MC Model Girls High School in Rawalpindi Pakistan were beaten with metal rods by the student body of an islamic Seminary last week?  Oh that's right, they support Obama because he will pay for the murders of their children, and he's all about sucking up to the Musselmen.  And the greater portion of America's biased and out of touch press dances to the Democratic Party's tune. 

Too bad about all the oppressed women and people murdered for their religious beliefs--nothing can get in the way of the Obama Press Whores and their campaign to not talk about the truth.  If the Global radicalization of Islam--especially in a nation with nuclear weapons--might make people have yet another reason to lose faith in Obama, well, then it ain't news.

Journalism in the US is now not more than propaganda, in many instances.  There's no need for a formal propaganda ministry--they have the reporters desiring to lie by omission on their own.  I guess nowadays, journalist can be synonymous with liar, at least liar by omission.

CATHOLICISM: Void Where Prohibited by Law

It says something about the climate of the US that the current Administration doesn't use the phrase "Freedom of Religion" and replaces it with the phrase "Freedom of Worship".  It says even more when the USCCB feels it necessary to create another committee to defend the Liberties of the Church against the government.  This move comes in response to various actions by the government--never supported by legislation but done through regulations and executive orders--to abridge the rights of people, especially Catholic people, to live according to the dictates of their religion.

Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport Connecticut is chairman of this committee, and he is a good choice, having fended of a legislative initiative to seize control of the Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) from the Bishops and to give it to groups of the laity in the State of Connecticut, and attempt that died in committee due in part to the organized resistance of the Church.  He points out that while  Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment,  "newly discovered" or "implied" rights are being promoted over this enumerated right.   Bishop Bishop Aquila of Fargo, ND predicts that there will come a time when the Government attempts to silence the Church, and that we shall have to speak out strongly for our freedoms, and that Civil Disobedience may become a necessary action.

The animus born towards religion in general, and our faith in particular is easily illustrated--from Obama's famous quote about us being embittered and clinging to "guns and religion" through such strange spectacles as a girl in Freemont NE being forbidden from wearing a necklace because it resembles a rosary (Because, you know, displaying a rosary means you're a gang banger of criminal.) which was egregious enough that the ACLU has gotten involved to a teacher in Vacaville, Maryland who disciplined a student for saying bless you after someone sneezed.  (Just to sweeten the pot, the next day when someone else said it after someone sneezed, he deducted 25 points from a test score--on every student!  The teacher is Steve Cuckovitch, and he claims that he did it because saying 'Bless you." after someone sneezes is disruptive.  Yeah, right.)

But more insidious than instances of oppression by school officials is the actions of our Federal Government, especially the Department of Health and Human Services.  The current attempt to undermine Catholic Praxis is the Religoius Exhemption Criteria that Kathleen Sebelius has drafted, which is so narrow as to require Catholic Outreaches to fund insurance that will pay for Abortions, Sterilizations and Contraceptives.  Such funding is material cooperation in evil, and she wants to enforce this on us.  The exeption reads like this:

(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as it's purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share it's religious tenants; (primarily serves persons who share it's religious tenants; (4) is a non profit organization. 

If you read that, you realize that it excludes virtually every form of outreach, from hospitals to soup kitchens, that serves anyone in need.  It's a way to freeze Catholics out of social services, from relief efforts and from education.  It's a way to silence us in the public square.  Kathlleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS, has said--and I quote-- "We are at War.".  Well, if HHS is at war to make everyone pay for contraceptive, abortions and sterilizations, then that implies that those who oppose this are the enemy.  We are now enemies of the state, as represented by HHS.  (By the way, Ms Sebelius said this while addressing a fundraiser by NARAL, so I guess by taking an extreme and hostile position, she hopes to get money for the Regime.)  On another front, USAID is pressuring Catholic Relief Services--one of the most effective relief agencies, with the highest rating for cash to relief vs cash to administration, to participate in "anti AIDS" activity, mostly the distribution of condoms (The distribution of which has been shown statistically to increase infection rates in the Third World).


It doesn't stop there of course.  the Obama Administration is currently presenting a case before the Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs EEOC.  The case was initiated by a woman named Cheryl Perich,   Her duties included leading students in prayer and Bible studies, and teaching secular subjects.  She missed about half a semester of work due to illness.  Later, when she wanted to return, the church voted to rescind her "Call to Ministry", making her ineligible for the position.  She maintains that this was discrimination, and the church maintains that her call was rescinded not because she missed work, but because she disagreed with church teachings.  As a solution to the tangle, the Obama Justice Department has asked to the court to do away with the Ministerial Exception.  Leodra Kruger, who is representing the government, told Chief Justice John Roberts--when asked if  religious groups have the right to judge the qualifications of their own key employees--that "We don't see that line of Church autonomy in the religion clause jurisprudence as such".  In other words, the government want's to tell churches who is and is not qualified as or considered to be a minister.  When asked by Justice Steven Breyer if this would include, say, regulating the Catholic Churches all male priesthood, she said that at this time the government's interests did not extend to that, a verbal formulation that leaves the door open to another time--and another assault on Liberty in the name of government regulation in the name of "fairness".    another area of concern is the Regimes refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act--the President having unilaterally decided it's unconstitutional, in defiance of all precedent.

Schools and Universities, Students and Pupils are coming under increasing attack.  The Fifth Circuit court reversed itself recently, and ruled that Students and Pupils have no right to sue principals and school boards who silence or discriminate against religious speech--finding suddenly, and against all precedent, that they have "immunity" from such suits.  The Judicial Branch has suddenly, in Texas at least, found that part of the Executive Branch is immune from law suits aimed at exercising the Constitutional right to Redress of Grievance.    Catholic colleges that are orthodox are also being singled out.  In 2009 the Regime went after Belmont Abbey College, a school with high academic standards, marked by adherence to the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. (It's one of the few Catholic Schools that have a Mandatum!) The EEOC tried to get them for not distribution oral contraceptives, reasoning that since only women took them, this was gender discrimination.  This came 8 months after the EEOC had sent the college a letter saying that it was in compliance with the applicable statutes concerning these practices.  The statutes didn't change.  What changed was the Obama Regime coming to power.  This same issue is currently being used against the Franciscan University of Steubenville. This time the banner is being held by Kathleen Sebelius and HHS.  These things are nothing less than a move in the war Ms Sebelius mentioned, focused against strongholds of orthodox Catholic Faith in education.  (Even if FUS is a little bit out to lunch on Liturgy!)    the interference in orthodox Catholic schools is marked enough that 18 colleges and universities, and the Cardinal Newman Society have banded together to oppose these infringements on Religious Liberty.   I hope that helps, but we must remember that the Aparatchik Obama has loosed on FSU said, on record, that if Religious Liberty conflicts with "gay rights"  (hmmm--Religious Liberty is enshrined in the Constitution, and "gay rights" are a new idea far from being universally accepted) the Religious Liberty must take a back seat.

All of these assaults revolve around, not doctrine, but practice.  And the practices they revolve around stem from a clear and consistent sexual morality.  In the end, the government is using peoples innate desire for libidinous  license to weaken the Church, which in the 20th Century was the most consistent, loudest voice in opposition to an amoral State dominance of the human mind.

(Finally, just a little prognostication on my part.  Logical prognostication.  We are in the grip of a "progressive" regime, and progressivism is a transnational consensus of people who think that the world should be a certain way, and wish to impose that upon the peoples of the Earth. If you look to countries that have had progressive regimes for a while, you can see what the proggies in the US want for us.  Right now, a British member of Parliament, Mike Weatherly, thinks that Churches that refuse to perform Gay Marriages should be banned from performing Legal Marriages.  And in Australia,  Archbishop Barry Hickey has gone on record as saying that if the push there for Sodomitic Marriages succeeds, and the Church is forced to perform them, then they will simply cease to perform legal marriages.  He also affirmed that the Church will continue to perform marriages as it always has.  look in the next few years for this to become an issue, and look for the Church to bes sued for not performing religious unions.  That's what's next.)

Range Day

Went to the range today.  It was beautiful, with the leaves turning on a bright sunny warm day, deep in Clark State Forest, nestled int he hills.

I was knockin' 'em down with my 9mm carbine, when suddenly the heat sheild fell off.  Because the front sight assembly came adrift and slid forward, during rapid fire practice. 

Crap!  more gun parts to fix/buy--and the season is getin' short!

Redneck Reflections: And Now, A Word From the Queen of the House:

Redneck Reflections: And Now, A Word From the Queen of the House:

A BLAST FROM THE PAST--READ IT AND BE AMAZED AT THE QOTH!

New Poll--Vote or Be Exiled to Portage, IN!

There is a new poll--and I will go with the majority on this one.  So Vote!!! It's free, secret and kind of fun!

I Don't Get It My Way

Like everybody else, I have preferences for the Liturgy.  Like everybody else, I don't get it my way.  For instance, I would prefer Ad Orientam celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to receive communion kneeling, under both species, at a Mass celebrated in strict accordance with the Rubrics, using the preferred Gregorian chants instead of metrical hymns, in the Ordinary Form, at a sung Liturgy, with the peoples responses in Latin.

I don't get it like that--and that's OK,  I do not want, and get rather annoyed by, Liturgies in which the rules and guidelines from Rome--which has final say over the Roman Rite, are more or less ignored.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that one of my preferred practices--Communion under both species--is not actually permitted!  In fact, the practice in the US, UK and parts of the Pacific of distributing under both species was conducted under an Indult, or special permission to deviate from the norm, granted as an experiment in 1975, and that ran out in 2005.  More than that, when the US bishops requested that this Indult be extended, it was denied.  We are supposed to be continuing under the usage of the Universal Church.  So, did anyone notice that practice being discontinued or restricted to those instances listed in the GIRM for the Universal Church?  No?  Me neither.

Apparently, we can receive under both species at certain times--the Bride and Groom at a Nuptial Mass, at the Feast of Corpus Christi, at the Chrism Mass, and at "Celebrations of Special Importance".  Provision is made as well for those who are allergic to wheat to receive the Precious Blood in lieu of The Body of Christ.

So from now on, I will be receiving under the Species of the Host alone, as well as telling my pastor about learning about this.  Just because I prefer both species doesn't mean that I should receive both species.  It's not always about what I want--it's always about the Sacrament, Our Lord, Respect for the Authority of the Church, Reverence and yes--Obedience.

I am also  appalled that in only two Diocese in the US have the Ordinaries come out, explained that to be obedient to the Church and the Holy Father we must conform to the usage of the Universal Church and begun a process of Catechesis and reform.  I find this appalling less because I'm hung up on rules per se, but more because we derive our communion with the Universal Church and the Pope--the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West--through our Bishop's communion with him.  Ignoring the norms of the Roman Rite, and not mentioning the fact that an Indult has expired and not been renewed strikes me as something that doesn't happen by accident, and that this sort of willingness to go their own way must, at some level, impair the Communion we enjoy, for it indicates contumacy, and perhaps the incipient form of Material Schism. 

I don't always get it my way,  and I'm OK with that, but I do want to get it the Church's way.

OCCUPY THIS!!!!

The whole 'Occupy Wall Street' thing is starting to get my goat.  So, now I"m gonna have my say, and let the chips fall.

First things first.  Political division is good for society.  Just glancing around in my history books, and looking at event's I have seen in my life, and some of the ones I have lived through, an environment that is politically unified always leads to bad things.  I can't think of time when this hasn't been the case.  The insistence on one point of view being the official line is unhealthy.  So I am pro protest, pro dissent, and pro arguing.

But there are limits, and then, there is nonsense.

And this is nonsense of the most dangerous sort.  The "protestors", aside from treating the whole event like some sort of street fest with no rules, have no clear point.  They seem incapable of elucidating anything beyond the hope that Obama gets reelected, and animus towards..towards..well towards about everything.  At the very best best, their cause is inchoate, and the very worst--and I'm thinking this is closer to the mark--they have nothing beyond the desire for confrontation and extreme politics.  This is not without precedent, and is perhaps the most dangerous political situation of them all. 

I want to mention a piece of history.  In 1934, Professor Theodore Abel of Columbia University conducted a study of Brownshirts--the street fighters and sidewalk activists of the Nazi Party--who had joined before 1 March 1933, to see why they joined.  The scarey thing is, that they too were possessed of a desire fro extreme politics, and possessed an inchoate political philosophy.  People seem to forget this, but it's important, because it made them easy prey for the Cult of Personality that finally dominated Germany.  Many of them could not articulate what the cause was, and many of them moved from group to group , as long as a group gave them an opportunity from the violence and confrontation they craved.   I have seen similar things on the left.  We had the Anarchist riots in Seattle in '99, which were more an opportunity for disorder, violence and confrontation than an expression of any set political goals.  I remember the Critical Mass" bike rides, that started as groups of bicyclists riding in strict conformity with traffic laws, but in mass to point out the problems cars and unsafe traffic control schemes posed degenerating into disorderly masses of young hooligans who  were less about transportation and traffic than about disruption for disruptions sake.  There is an amorphous group of people in this country who just want to raise hell, for the sake of disobedience.  No longer Civil Disobedience, but confrontation for it's own sake.  It's as if a whole segment of our society has developed oppositional/defiant disorder, and decided to make it political.  such groups are the roots of the worst sort of fascism.  Both Hitlers Nazi's and Mussolini's Italian Fascists sprang from such groups of young, violent and disaffected activists on the left.  Remember that--fascism springs from leftist street thugs who lose faith in their established parties.  (It's surprising how many Nazi's started as street fighters with the various leftist and Communist groups in post Great War Germany, and Mussolini's group came out of Italian Socialism.) 

Interesting to me is the desire to "Take Back Wall Street" and to support Barack Obama.  Somehow, these people have forgotten, or never noticed, that "Wall Street" gave it's largest even set of political contributions (even allowing for inflation!) to Obama in '08.  And, of course, they aren't noticing that he gave the bailout to these same firms.  Somehow, they think re-electing a politician that "Wall Street" owns will reform the finance industry.  They are ignorant, simply ignorant, of what's going on around them.  This again parellels the rise of fascism, to include the very vocal but minority element that was enmeshed in Anti-Semeticism--perhaps you saw the video of the "occupier" going of an a tirade against "The Jews who run Wall Street" to a Jewish man--who BTW, was not a financier.  If you know your history, it was chilling.

Equally chilling is the determination of the Occupiers (that's going to be my short hand!) determination to break with old school activists.  The sight of a mob of people "Occupying Atlanta" chanting what ever their self appointed leaders told them to, and repeating their words word for word, while silencing John Lewis--John Lewis, the gutsiest and longest lasting civil rights activists in Congress!) is also frightening.  They weren't shouting Seig Heil, but when you're whipping up a mob, the words are less important than the chanting.  Also scarey is Sally Kohn, a community organizer who commented on the CNN site that these actions were comparable to the Boston Tea Party, and that "...that protest ultimately turned very violent".  Aside from the historical inaccuracy--Paul Revere actually replaced the locks that were broken to seize the tea, and in fact the action of the Boston Tea Party were unpopular in the Colonies and set the cause back two to three years--she seems to miss the point that the problem at that time was people being without a vote, and the problem this time--just as in the Wisconsin affray earlier this year--was people voting against the left.

As these "Occupy" events have spread, the targets get a little senseless.  Why on Earth did these foolish street thugs--and that's what they are--attempt to force their way into the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, resulting in it's closure?  How was this oppressing them?  For that matter, what does defecating on a police car prove, other than you have no class, are probably either afflicted with opposition-defiant diosrder or a borderline personality?  What's with all the peeing over every thing?  These people say they are the "99%".  Not on a bet--they do not represent me, they do not represent anyone I know, and they are out of control--a mob bent only on slaking their own thirst for disorder and confrontation.


Yeah, financially, we're kind of screwed--but the screwers have been most often government, not commerce.  Right now, depending on the month, 5%-7% of my income is lost in bank fees.  This is the result-directly the result--of regulations passed by the Democratic congress two years ago, and signed by Obama, which restricted certain revenue streams that banks had been using.  They have to make it up somewhere--This I could understand protesting--but protesting "Wall Street", "The Jews" etc is senseless.

Finally, I have to wonder about this--if this is such a grass roots item, why are there paid protestors?  Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller decided to interview Hispanic protestors to see why they were there, and was surprised to find them pointing to their Anglo group leader and calling him their boss--they were there as paid day laborers, and the work for the day was to protest.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's time use the National Guard, with bayonets, tear gas and anything else necessary, and clear out streets of these fools--and to incarcerate them for a few weeks in tents, in a really miserable place, eating Army rations. ( I think it would be fun to send them all to Iraq, and leave them there when we withdraw--pay back on two counts! [yes, that's a joke].)