Ok, breathe. Recall that St. Pope John Paul the Great gave red hats to Mahony and Law. Episcopal appointments are not infallible.
The Archdiocese is very near and dear to my heart — it is our “home diocese”; we were received into the Church by Francis Cardinal George at the Easter Vigil in 2000.
As a body composed of 1.2 billion living members, we pray and work under a really big tent. For the most part, I believe that it is our own fallen nature (and those little cutting whispers in our ears) that causes us to tear down others in our tent who we think are “doing it wrong”.
We can (and should) agree that there are multiple ways to do the same thing, and subsidiarity suggests that the Church empowers us to look at our individual circumstances and act prudently.
But some things are non-negotiable. The acceptance of abortion by human society is a murderous famine, and failing to defend the rights and dignity of the unborn is unacceptable Catholic practice. That’s not my opinion, but rather directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them. (para. 2269).
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (para. 2272).
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. (para. 2274).
So, how does this relate to Chicago’s new Archbishop? Visit Shea’s blog and search “Cupich” (and there are other sources of the same information). In Spokane, His Excellency essentially put a stop to official diocesan participation in sidewalk vigils, 40 Days for Life, etc. He made it clear he did not wish to see his priests or seminarians at such things. The question was raised at his initial conference with the Chicago press last Saturday (beginning around 13:15):
Why is His Excellency so upset?!? Without a doubt, Jesus Christ stands outside the abortion clinics to pray too. A “seamless garment” approach can work so long as it does not treat opposition to abortion as one of the “seams”.
Your Excellency, you told us that you want to be a Pastor to the good people of Chicagoland, I earnestly ask you: will you please be a Pastor to the unborn too? Heaven cries out for justice and the little ones need YOU.
…..and the Antithesis of Manhood claims a new exemplar, demonstrating why Western society is in total decay.
Dr. David Bell is from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and is the lead author of a research study recently printed in the “journal” Contraception. He is also the medical director for the Young Men’s Clinic, part of New York Presbyterian Hospital’s Family Planning Clinic.
He states in the article linked above that a “responsible” male sexual partner is one who buys “emergency contraception for their partner” if (or when) “the condom breaks.”
But Dr. Bell complains that even though “Plan B” — the “morning-after pill” — is available for purchase by “any person of any age… without a prescription at U.S. drugstores,” sometimes “men” aren’t permitted to buy it when they go to the pharmacy alone. Sometimes the pharmacy requires a “man” to “bring either a female or her ID with him” before the pharmacy will sell Plan B.
“People should make sure they aren’t putting up additional barriers that prevent men from taking a responsible role within the relationship, Bell said.”
Because, there’s nothing more responsible than paying for the means to kill your own offspring, right?
To test out Dr. Bell’s claims, Reuters sent out young male “mystery shoppers” throughout New York City to see if they could score some Plan B without a female (or her ID) on hand, and were successful at 128 of 158 pharmacies visited. This is important:
Most of the people working at the pharmacies did give the mystery shoppers accurate information about the medication’s effectiveness. One worker incorrectly told a shopper that the medication would cause an abortion.
More euphemism. The claim that Plan B does not “cause” an abortion is premised upon selective definition. Plan B works by preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo (i.e., unborn baby; individual member of the human race) in the uterus. Since abortion involves the removal of an embryo (or fetus) already implanted, it is a technical distinction to claim that Plan B does not cause an “abortion”. All the same, it extinguishes a newly-formed human life. It’s an unborn baby killer.
So, instead of stating that Plan B causes an abortion, it would be more correct to simply state: “This will kill your unborn baby.”
I’m getting tired of the Age of Euphemism highjacking all the words in the dictionary. It is not remotely responsible to aid and abet your casual sexual partner in the termination of your own offspring; it is a shameful perversion of the beauty of human relationships.
If this is “Public Health”, I want know what Public Sickness looks like. Wait, no I don’t.
….. are not synonymous terms. Chances are, regardless of the type of habit that she wears, if you see her out and about, if you are interacting with her (outside of a monastery), then she is a “Sister” (i.e., consecrated woman religious). Which makes “Nuns on the Bus” — however catchy that sounds — just a bit more euphemistic. If that particular group of women religious were indeed “Nuns”, then they (in all likelihood) would not be aboard such a bus to promote the ACA, or female ordination, or whatever.
My wife and I were privileged to greet our new godson last week, who, despite being born “full term”, is rather small. Despite his smallness, he’s a rather handsome guy! He received the Sacrament of Baptism on Sunday, and throughout the liturgy he was serene and observant.
Possibly it can all be attributed to an overly cautious pediatrician, but between his smallness and a couple of other indicators, he and Mom remained at the hospital a little longer than usual, and a full battery of blood tests were ordered to determine if he has any chromosomal or developmental abnormalities.
So far, the news is hopeful that he is normal, and just on the small side. All of the test results haven’t turned up anything yet. Given his father’s propensity for enjoying good food (shared by older brother, 2 years old), I imagine that this little guy is already on his way to bulking up.
I think Mom and Dad are still waiting to hear back from the doctor regarding a few more tests, so if you could please continue to pray for him and the whole family, I would be grateful. They are all very dear people to us.
It’s a very telling sign of the times that in the past year, Satanists are now openly conducting “black masses”. First was the one a few months ago in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and this Saturday there is one scheduled in a civic auditorium in Oklahoma City, where a consecrated host was to be used until the Archbishop filed a lawsuit against the Satanic church to recover it.
A black mass is an “inversion” of the Catholic mass. It should be somewhat shocking to us that some Satanists have more faith in the Real Presence than Catholics do; a black mass isn’t truly one without a consecrated host. The demons who surround these Satanists know what they are doing and they know who and what they attack by what they do.
This should tell us something about Catholicism. When Satan or one of his minions attempts to mock Christ, their primary action is not to take the Bible and stomp on it. They don’t steal water from the Baptist church and pee in it. They don’t abscond with tracts from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and deface them. They don’t sneak into Mormon temples and make off with their special garments for use in Satanic rituals.
Satanists steal the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, which they desecrate in a variety of ways during their “black mass”.
Satan, his demons, and those people he imprisons to serve him on earth know that the Church has the authority to send evil back to Hell. Satan and his demons must respect the Church’s authority, because her authority comes from Jesus himself.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives authority over his Church to St. Peter, the first pope: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus gives the power to all the apostles at 18:18: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus “cast out the spirits with his word, and he healed all that were sick” (Matthew 8:16). Sometimes Jesus exorcised from a distance (Matthew 15:22; Mark 7:25). Sometimes the demons recognized Him as “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). He gave the Apostles the authority to cast out demons in His name. (Matthew 10:1 and 8; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1; 10:17).
Consider this article concerning Tulsa exorcist Monsignor Patrick Brankin, who was appointed the exorcist for the Diocese of Tulsa about four years ago. Before he was appointed, he was asked to investigate a case because the diocese “was unable to find an exorcist to handle it”. Msgr. Brankin went to visit the afflicted person “even though he had not yet been appointed as an exorcist.” On the first visit:
He found the person crouched in a corner of a room.
Brankin said the demon in the person immediately recognized him as a priest, without looking at him, and pronounced smugly that it knew Brankin had not been given the authority to exorcise it.
“That scared me,” Brankin said. [I’ll bet it did. Imagine sharing a room with a powerful, unknown malevolence that knows there’s nothing you can do.]
Months later, after undergoing exorcism training in Rome, working with an experienced exorcist, and being “given faculties” (commissioned) as an exorcist, Brankin returned. This time, he said, the demon said it knew he had been given faculties and feared him.
The victim was successfully exorcised and is living a healthy Christian life, Brankin said.
Demons don’t fear priests on their own; but a priest who acts under the authority of his bishop — a successor of the Apostles — is to be feared, because it is the same authority that Jesus gave and it can send a demon straight back to Hell.
If Authority granted by Jesus to the Church compels obedience by demons and Satan himself, what can we say when tasked with obedience to the Church ourselves? Shall we dissent? Shall it be the same “Non serviam” uttered by Lucifer?
In contrast to angels and demons (i.e., fallen angels), we humans are capable of disobeying God and the authority granted His Church, because God gives us that freedom. But He gives us freedom so that we might “choose the good”; He will hold us accountable for how we use the freedom He gives.
Because it’s a totally good idea, and science fiction has never suggested that we need to worry about genetically-engineered mice with human brain genes. I can’t wait for Phase 2, when the super-smart rodents are given cobra genes for venom and eagle genes for flight and talons. And, I’m really looking forward to more of this in real life:
As a matter of natural law, a child possesses a right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to one another in marriage. (CCC 2376). No one has a right to a child; rather, “only the child possesses genuine rights: the right ‘to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,’ and ‘the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.'” (CCC 2378).
The ubiquity of children born or raised outside traditional marriage is not a valid defense for its legitimacy. Such situations are not optimal for children, although some situations may be better in some fashion than other potential circumstances.
Same-sex “married” couple Bob and Joe can engage in same-sex activity a million times and will never make a baby. Babies come from a father’s sperm and a mother’s egg. In terms of procreation, “parents” can never be so unless one parent is a mother and the other a father.
Today I received an e-mail alert concerning California Assembly Bill 1951, which is currently sitting on Governor Brown’s desk, awaiting signature. This bill represents an advancement of the euphemistic, erroneous, and illusory claims of those seeking to normalize same-sex relationships in the context of the human family; it is an assault upon the sanctity of the family and the human person. Legality is not the same as justice for those affected.
If signed, AB 1951 will modify gender-specific labeling on every certificate of live birth recorded in the state. Birth certificates will have lines for two “Parents”. Each designated “Parent” will provide a checkbox option to identify if the parent is a “Mother”, “Father” or “Parent”. According to the Legislative Analysis of the Bill (go here and search ‘1951’), the law:
Requires the State Registrar, beginning January 1, 2016, to modify birth certificates to recognize same-sex couples, allowing for a gender neutral option on the certificate
identifying a “parent.”
….the current practice in completing a birth certificate
limits the choices for a same-sex couple, forcing same-sex parents to inaccurately place one of their names in the “Father” or “Mother” field.
….this bill will allow same-sex parents to accurately identify each parent as Mother, Father, or Parent in check boxes, allowing for birth certificates to reflect two mothers or two fathers, as well as a gender-neutral parent option.
Equality California, the sponsor of this bill, writes that it will allow same-sex couples to eliminate inaccurate designations on California birth certificates, stating that the current forms that designate parents as just “mother” and “father,” regardless of the gender of the parent are confusing, often inaccurate, and do not reflect the realities of modern families.
It will therefore be possible and legally permissible for any birth certificate to state that a child is born of two “parents”, but not also a mother and father. This is, of course, something entirely contrary to Truth and the natural rights of the human person.
The basis given for this assault upon the rights of the human person is that this will better “reflect the realities of modern families”, which is a euphemistic way of identifying less than just 1% of the state’s population.
According to 2010 Census data, in California there were 494,058 children age “0” (i.e., newly born) statewide. There were 23,346 children under the age of 18 living in households headed by male same-sex couples in 2010. There were 37,841 children under the age of 18 living in households headed by female same-sex couples in 2010. In total there were 61,187 children living in households headed by same-sex couples.
Assuming an even distribution of ages in those households, and dividing the total by 19, there were 3,220 children “born” to same-sex couples in the same period that there were 494,058 children born statewide, or just 0.65% of the total children born in the state.
This isn’t about fairness, confusion, or even a proper reflection of the realities of modern family. This is about forcing society at large to affirm and normalize the bad “choices” of a tiny minority of individuals. These choices — and society’s affirmation of them — harm children.
As a result of the passage of AB 1951, any children born in this state will be potentially deprived of official recognition from their government that they have a FATHER and a MOTHER. Further, every child, regardless of the options selected by his or her “parents”, will be deprived of official recognition from their government that they have a right to a FATHER and a MOTHER.
Same-sex marriage affects my marriage. Same-sex marriage affects the rights of everyone. This is just one example.