Noteworthy Blog: Orwell's Picnic and Her Dead-On Pieces on Feminism #Catholic

A friend of mine recommended the blog "Orwell's Picnic." I remember reading it and instantly liking the opinions of its author, Hilary Jane Margaret White. Recently, a blog post of hers was featured on Pew Sitter and I loved it. The post, "A Hateful Ideology," showcased a video where a U.K. psychologist and Men's Rights activist said, "There's no way I would regard feminism as anything but an evil in our society."

Hilary Jane may categorize her post under the title "Why I don't like women," but she is one woman I do like. And there are many others who share the same opinion: that radical feminism has brought destruction and misery in to society.

I'm a very strong, independent woman, myself. But in my early days of being drawn to feminism, I quickly sensed something wasn't completely right. I didn't want to see men as the "enemy" but simply wanted my talents and expertise compensated fairly. I also am not the kind of personality that welcomed a full tank of anger and as I started to visit feminist events, I saw first-hand several patterns: women were either angry, frustrated, or depressed. None of these traits were attractive to me. Years later, as I've watched feminists gain more and more "rights" (sometimes at the expense of men's rights), I thought I'd finally see some satisfaction from their ranks. Not a chance.

Instead, it seems that many of these women are caught in a relentless wheel of dissatisfaction and that any victory they achieve is only celebrated for moments before cranking out more demands to be seen as equal. Equality, in my eyes, has been reached. Discrimination is not nearly as much of a problem as it was, say, in the sixties. I am grateful for this but yet am amazed that many of these radical feminists cannot rest and enjoy what has happened. Instead there is this joyless trudging through life as though a battle-ready existence is much more preferable to relishing peace-time.

Women do have the ability to influence society for the good. (Instead of embracing oppressive philosophies such as socialism.) But more women who reject feminism need to start becoming involved by sharing their views with their own families, friends, and within their churches. I continue to think of our Blessed Mother when I think of feminism. She was truly feminine, not weak at all but full of God's grace, bestowed upon her through humility. She didn't insist on her own way but instead surrendered to God everything. She trusted Him above all things and was used as His instrument in bringing salvation to the world. There are so many lessons women can learn from her that can enrich our lives.

Hilary Jane has more posts under the category "why I don't like women" but I fully understand her reasoning. Over the past sixty years in the U.S., there has been a systematic attack on the traditional family, in which women played a core role. Once you get a woman confused and dissatisfied, the structure of the family unit is weakened. It is, in my mind, evil -- and straight from the pit of hell. The devil sought to destroy the birth of Jesus and it has been the same ever since. The devil seeks death and destruction. Feminism is his tool.

If you find yourself in agreement, I heartily recommend visiting Orwell's Picnic. Hilary Jane has some very interesting thoughts on the topic.

The Failure of Liberal #Catholic High Schools

There is a battle heating up and the lines are being drawn. On one hand, I am sad for this battle, for it is one that should have been between the world and the Church. Instead it is the worldly church against the Truth. On the other hand, this battle is purifying the Church.

Despite charges against those who stand for what the Catholic Church believes (that homosexuality is a sin, but one who struggles with same-sex attraction is to be loved, and also challenged to live a chaste and obedient life to God), it is becoming clear who is willing to listen to truth and pursue it -- and those who are not. Supporting the gay agenda and ordination of women, have become our modern-day litmus test.

Contrary to supporters of active homosexual lifestyles, those who support the Catholic Church's position are not "intolerant" and "ignorant." It is not "ignorant" to uphold Biblical truth. or desire to see people set free from sin. It is not "ignorant" to love God to the point of surrendering our lives, turning away from what displeases Him, and trusting in His purpose for our life.

It is "ignorant," however, to avoid the truth of God's commandments for our lives and the counsel of the Catholic Church that seeks to keep our souls from falling into mortal sin.

I am finding that sin isn't mentioned too often by those who embrace the radical gay and feminist agendas. I even heard a horrifying story of one liberal priest scoff, "Sin? We don't believe in that, anymore."

Oh, really? Interestingly enough, God still believes in it and wrote an entire book called the Bible to educate us on it. He also sent His only Son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross to free us from it. I don't think God would waste His time if sin was not a problem.

Last night, I read of the Sacred Heart School in Kingston, Massachusetts, who is just one example of a liberal school that has failed to impart Catholic doctrine to its students. In fact, I found the entire sordid tale appalling on several levels.

Here's the story: In May of this year, a graduating senior decided to write a story for the school newspaper about how some of the students were "in the closet" regarding their sexuality. Evidently he found several who were willing to talk to him about being either gay or bisexual. These were both young men and women who were students of a school that presents itself to its community as being Catholic.

Where was the principal? The teacher advisor? Who was driving this bus, anyway?

It turns out that the principal was fully aware of the newspaper story and gave permission to run with it.

Again - this is supposed to be a Catholic school.

From the article, The Homosexual Agenda in Catholic Schools:

The Sacred Heart High School administration approved the publication of the article in the school newspaper. The article directly contradicts Catholic teaching as it relates to issues of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender behavior, God's merciful love, and sin. The teacher moderator of the student newspaper, Scott Dalton, approved the publication of this article, as did the principal, John Enos. The school newspaper is distributed at school and not published on the Web. In general, most parents who send their children to Sacred Heart School have no idea this article was ever published.

Wow.

This story has now spilled over onto the Internet. You can follow the link above to read about one parent, Michael Kelly, share his tragic story of gathering with other concerned Catholic parents and confronting the school on this matter. The obstinacy, arrogance, and complete disregard for the parent's input on the Catholic education of their children is both bewildering and outrageous. Any parent who sends their children to a Catholic school can vouch for the sacrifices that are needed to do so. They send their children to a Catholic school precisely because they don't want the anti-God, anti-American, pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-radical feminism indoctrination they would get with a public school. And Catholic school tuition isn't cheap.

And this is what is given to them? Unfortunately, there is more.

A brave woman, Carol McKinley, decided to expose on her blog the story of Sacred Heart Schools and their complete failure in imparting Catholic doctrine about homosexuality to the students. What happened next is not a surprise to bloggers. That it happened with "Catholics", was.

Her comment area was soon filled with vile, hateful accusations from the Catholic students of the school, and allegedly, of their parents. I will include one comment from a student, which speaks volumes:

As an academically rounded young woman and a Sacred Heart High School student, you disgust me and my bones shudder at the thought that you were not aborted.

So, now we can add a lack of teaching about abortion in the mix, in addition to a lack of teaching about homosexuality.

The rest of the comments are horrendous. Not only do they show the void of Catholic moral teaching, they show an absence of decent human discourse. Has no one taught these students how to debate reasonably without allowing emotions to control the argument? Evidently not. The students resort to ad hominem attacks, vulgar language, and hateful threats -- even going so far as to post Carol's address and telephone number.

This, my brothers and sisters, is the moral bankruptcy of liberal Catholicism.

It has failed to not only produce Catholic sons and daughters who understand their Catholic faith, it has rendered them incapable of being able to conduct themselves wisely in the world. This story should shame their parents, the administrators of this school, and the diocese. Bad fruit indeed, from a rotten tree.

It is by the grace of God that I am where I am in life. I attended an all-girls Catholic high school, but it was liberal. I remember our English teacher was gay. During a school dance, he brought his "partner." Nothing was said about it, but everyone knew. No attempts were made by our school to discourage it. In fact, I would often wonder why a Catholic school had a gay teacher to begin with. It was 1978.

Fast forward to today and the mess many of our seminaries are in, coupled with the sexual abuse cases by priests. Is this the fruit of Vatican II? I realize now that was not its intent, but obviously something went off the rails. I know of good Catholic teachers who have had trouble getting jobs in Catholic schools because they're too traditional. I've heard of some of these same teachers being fired from their posts because they presented pro-life curriculum or spoke out against homosexuality.

This is happening within Catholic schools.

Where will it stop? When Catholic schools start to hand out condoms and birth control pills?

It stops when Catholic identity becomes clear. It stops when parents get involved with their Catholic schools, checking the curriculum and attending meetings. It stops when it is exposed for what it is -- lies and deceit about our Catholic faith, and corrected with the truth.

I know I'll continue to do my part. May St. Michael gear up for battle and fight on our behalf because it will only continue to become worse unless we take a stand.

(Note: Comments will be moderated.)

Rock On, Real #Catholic TV! Another Powerful Episode: A Pure Heart

I have become increasingly interested in Real Catholic TV's Internet show "The Vortex," with commentary by Michael Voris, S.T.B. (The letters stand for Bachelor of Sacred Theology, given through a Pontifical university.)

I really like Voris because 1) He is not afraid to name evil or sin and 2) He is unapologetically Catholic and continues to call the Catholic Church back to its mission.

I think his commentary below, "A Pure Heart," is especially timely with regard to the University of Illinois firing of Dr. Ken Howell. On one hand, you have a Catholic Church that promoted a show of support for the Pride Parade in New York. On the other, an almost silent response occurred when a Catholic professor is openly fired from his job because he presented the Catholic Church's beliefs on homosexuality.

I'm also adding the episode, "Midnight Call." Vorhis hits the nail squarely on the head with this one!

If you like this video, consider joining Real Catholic TV by subscribing. Let me know what you think. I thought it was superb.

More videos can be seen at their YouTube Channel.

Will It Matter? Diocese of Peoria to Meet With UI Officials Over Firing of Howell #Catholic

I'm not sure whether to remain hopeful or not regarding a scheduled meeting between the officials of the University of Illinois and the Diocese of Peoria, regarding the firing of Catholic Professor Ken Howell.

This issue is far more important than the reinstatement of one professor to his job. It is the harbinger of truth regarding freedom of religion and speech in our country. When a university offers a religion course -- and then decides to punish the explanation of that religion's tenets, the noose has been tightened in many ways upon individuals freely expressing themselves.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that meeting. How can the University of Illinois defend themselves? They knew Dr. Howell was Catholic, and the course he taught was called "Introduction to Catholicism." It isn't a secret that Catholicism does not believe homosexuality is an accepted sexual choice, and within the Catechism, is called "intrinsically disordered."

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC, Part Three: Life In Christ, Section 2: The Ten Commandments, Article 6: The Sixth Commandment, II The Vocation to Chastity, Chastity and Homosexuality)

If one were to take a course called "Introduction to Judaism," they would find that sexual relations between men is clearly forbidden by the Torah (Lev. 18:22). Although the sexual act is forbidden, they, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, also makes the distinction between act and orientation; the latter being a desire that presents a choice to act upon or not. I suspect that speaking of "choice" in a religion class in regard to homosexuality, would also be punished.

And that is the source of my growing concern. Not that the concept of freedom of religion and speech is at stake, but the idea of personal choice. Never more has it been made clearer than in today's culture that there is no such thing as decision and choice.

The outcry from the radical progressives isn't so much that the Catholic Church says homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered," but over the claim that personal choice is involved. There are still many who believe homosexuality is genetic. But many lesbians disprove that theory by openly admitting they became a lesbian for political reasons. So there is no "gay gene" as much as some may want it.

And the world's idea of "personal choice" has no rhyme or reason. It isn't a personal choice if one is living a homosexual lifestyle but yet it is a choice for a woman to kill her unborn child. It isn't a personal choice for an impoverished youth to kill someone (because they were raised in an unhealthy environment and "couldn't help it") but it is a personal choice for that same youth to join hateful, racist organizations under the guise of "empowerment."

For the University of Illinois, it isn't a personal choice to allow a diversity of opinion but it is a personal choice to punish and condemn a person or group for expressing their own personal opposition to other people's personal choices.

Because at the end, we as Christians aren't supposed to "judge." Judging, in the world's terms, basically means Christians believing what they believe. I know very few Christians who hang around street corners and tell people they're going to hell if they continue to sin and not repent. Most churches have been successfully neutered on that count. But there are a few bastions of morality hanging around and the Catholic Church is one of them. Because the world has silenced many by egalitarian philosophies, those who dare to stand and name their own beliefs that contradict the world's; are targeted not just for punishment, but extermination. Sound familiar?

Cases such as Dr. Howell's are meant to convey this threat: Oppose us and you will be destroyed. Dr. Howell is a good professor. His students voted him as one of the campus' best. But that didn't matter when it came down to it because one person was able to trump all his accomplishments with the accusation that Dr. Howell was being "hateful." Even if the class was an introduction to Catholicism, and even if it is historically known and proven that the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality is rooted in Natural Moral Law, it doesn't mean anything when compared to the more modern position of "anything goes."

When it comes to hatred, the legion of professors espousing hatred for the United States and Western Civilization is ignored. The perversion of American history is ignored. The expulsion of our military recruitment offices from university campuses is ignored. The false accusations of the Duke lacrosse players was initially ignored. The harassment and physical violence toward guest speakers who represent fair debate on issues such as immigration, is ignored. Ann Coulter had a speaking engagement for a Canadian university cancelled because the animals who call themselves students were throwing rocks and sticks at her. But not one person who claimed to represent "diversity" of viewpoints, could be found to defend any of those situations.

This is what the world has wrought. Under the cloak of "inclusivity" and "diversity," it instead has ushered in a new age of fascism. All opinions and arguments are accepted -- as long as it agrees with their worldview. If it is outside of that worldview, forget it. You're suddenly looked upon as a neanderthal, barely able to rub two sticks together for fire.

We who are Christian know the score. We know that the world has hated and will always hate the truth. I suppose I should be grateful that Dr. Howell's was able to last as long as he did in the den.

The Superiority of Christ Over "Personal Liberation" #Catholic

KKollwitz provided a link in his last comment that was further commentary on the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is a very long article, but well worth the read if you have time. ("Carl Rogers and the IHM Nuns: Sensitivity Training, Psychological Warfare and the 'Catholic Problem'" by Dr. E. Michael Jones) It presents a fascinating (albeit, sad) tale of psychotherapy in the sixties and even how some of the groundwork for it was laid in the 1940's. After reading the article, there is no doubt in my mind that what was done to those nuns in the sixties was nothing less than psychological warfare with the objective as destroying the Catholic Church and overall, Christianity.

I have had my concerns about psychotherapy for some time. I am not completely against it and have had a few therapy sessions, myself. But my concern has been with those who practice it and are anti-Christian, who look to psychotherapy as a way to be "liberated" without acknowledging that there is such a thing as sin and sin keeps us in bondage. If a therapist claims that a person is being "repressed," the obvious question would be: repressed by whom? And usually the answer to such a question is: repressed by rigid belief systems such as religion, that only seek to control an individual.

But really, who is trying to control whom? When the psychotherapists got a hold of those nuns, they knowingly sought to control them by leading them away from the Catholic Church. By claiming they were introducing the nuns to "personal liberation," they placed them in another type of bondage -- one where they were trapped within endless self-reflection and worldviews that had only their voice and the voice of their fellow therapy participants as their point of reference. Soon after the psychotherapy experiment began, the sisters were released from attending daily Mass, which before was mandatory. Consistent prayer and meditation, which occurs during Mass, was removed. It's not a surprise that the nuns began to look to one another and their therapists as their guides.

I have an apology. In my previous post, I made a judgemental comment about the Bishop at the time and questioned the leadership that would allow such experimentation to take place. Lo and behold, it was Cardinal James McIntyre, who was cast in an uncharitable light with National Catholic Reporter's article, "Vatican, U.S. Women Religious Tensions Go Back Decades": (emphasis mine)

1968 –Cardinal James McIntyre of Los Angeles demands that the Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters back down from the changes in dress, work and living arrangements approved by the community’s chapter – and submit to his control instead -- or be forced out of the order. In what became a national scandal, the great majority of sisters refused to give in, and left to form a community separate from hierarchical control.

Well, no wonder His Eminence had issues with what was going on. It was obviously clear to him that the changes at the IHM seminary were not good ones and could only lead to chaos. History has proven him right. As a matter of fact, the more I learn about Cardinal James McIntyre, the more I like him. I may be highlighting him more in my blog because I suspect this man's good character and devout Catholicism has been misrepresented in print and I'd like to honor him. Anyone who sends his priests to John Birch Society meetings to be educated about the evils of communism, is a good guy in my book.

Any type of evaluation of oneself cannot address the root source of the problem -- which is sin; apart from a thorough examination of the claims of Jesus Christ. Only by renouncing self (as opposed to elevating it), will bring the peace that is sought. In renouncing, is a beautiful and joyful embracing of who we were created to be -- in Christ. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Phil. 4:13 NKJV) If that's not an "empowerment" statement, I don't know what is. But the key component of that statement is the dependence and surrender we have with God through His Son, Jesus Christ and by the grace and power of His Holy Spirit.

Too often, people place their trust in humanistic philosophies when in fact, placing their trust in God through Christ is exactly what they need and what will bring them health, healing, and a right mind and heart. Approaching God in humility will result in an abundance of grace, which brings peace and wholeness. Apart for Christ, there simply is no peace.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. (Eph. 2:11-16 RSV)

The Left's Schizophrenic Battle With Self

(Photo courtesy of LIFE, Location: San Francisco, California, Date taken: April 1967, Photographer: Ralph Crane)

Earlier this morning, I read a post by the powerfully prolific Robert Stacy McCain, that exposed a dilemma of many progressives. However, because leftists are masters of self-delusion and obfuscation, it's no surprise they're unable to see the irony of their current beliefs.

McCain referenced an essay by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books. I'll use the same quote by Lilla:

[W]e need to see [the Tea Party movement] as a manifestation of deeper social and even psychological changes that the country has undergone in the past half-century. Quite apart from the movement’s effect on the balance of party power, which should be short-lived, it has given us a new political type: the antipolitical Jacobin. The new Jacobins have two classic American traits that have grown much more pronounced in recent decades: blanket distrust of institutions and an astonishing—and unwarranted—confidence in the self. They are apocalyptic pessimists about public life and childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem when it comes to their own powers.

He had me at "unwarranted confidence in the self" and "childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem."

How old is this guy? From a quick search, it seems as though Mr. Lilla is about fifty-three. Perhaps he's developing Alzheimer's or did too many drugs in the seventies but suffice it to say - our country was built upon the concepts of self-determination and independence. And in the sixties, this little idea called "self-actualization" came into play. As a matter of fact, I'm in the midst of watching a BBC documentary called "A Century of the Self." I find it fascinating but also tragic; for an obsession with self can often lead to an unbalanced life and in its extreme, mental illness.

I was stunned to find one portion of this documentary tell the story of how nuns were duped into allowing radical psychotherapists test out their harebrained idea of "personal liberation." (As the documentary stated: "The convent, anxious to appear modern, agreed to the experiment.") The result?

The nuns decided to discard their habits for ordinary clothes. And the psychotherapists found that they had "unleashed a sexual energy." (I have no idea who was driving the bus at this point but I think it's safe to say their bishop had no idea what was going on.) One nun seduced one of her classmates, and then seduced the mistress of novices. Within a year, 300 nuns (more than half of the convent), petitioned the Vatican to be released from their vows. Six months later, the convent closed its doors. All that was left was a small group of nuns and they had become radical lesbian nuns. The rest gave up the religious life. (One of the psychotherapists, when asked about the nuns giving up religious life, said, "Yes. They became persons." How amazingly ignorant.)

That's what can happen when "personal liberation" and an elevation of self meets religion. And that entire deconstruction of morals was the fruit of the fatalistic sixties. From the end of this portion of the documentary:

Self exploration was spreading rapidly in America. Encounter groups became the center of what was seen as a radical alternative culture, based on the development of the self, free of a corrupt capitalistic culture.

I highlighted the schizophrenic battle cry, the one sounded by many leftists during their youth, which was: Capitalism is bad because it "forces" a person to adhere to a rigid set of rules and has no compassion or concern for others. But the development of self? Why that was a higher ideal! Why not do whatever made one "feel good?" Sex, drugs, experimentation of any kind - all was perfectly acceptable and even encouraged by those who claimed to be "personally liberated."

Now we fast-forward to today, where Marxists walk the halls of the White House and Communists wear suits. Suddenly, according to the Mark Lilly's of the world, self-esteem is bad. Forget the fact that this is what has been spoon-fed to our children over the past forty years. The leftists now want everyone to believe that encounter groups and "empowerment" sessions were helpful to a point, but realized the error of their ways.

Quite frankly, they went too far. Now the country is too self-aware and independent for their taste. Now you have the pesky little problem of people running around, challenging the government to leave them alone and quit interfering with their lives. If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was living in a 60's redux with Holly shaking her fist at "The Man" in the Oval Office, raking him over the coals. But I suppose that kind of umbrage was fine for Holly as long as she was smoking dope and sleeping her way through the bands at Woodstock.

Now that we have responsible taxpayers (those who already have given years of productivity to our country), questioning the government and claiming self-sufficiency - suddenly they're the bad guys. The Tea Party folks are "expressing" their personal liberation mentality but gosh darnit, that just doesn't sit well with the hippie generation that now is grown up and desperate to control everything.

Ironic, isn't it?

Why Politics Mixed With Religion Is a Bad Idea #tcot #sgp #Catholic

From the ever-thought-provoking The American Thinker, a great article: The Hypocrisy of the Left by contributor, Robin of Berkeley.

"...I decided it was time to explore places of worship. Being a secular Jew, my first step should have been a temple. However, the synagogues around here are practically recruitment stations for Obama (aside from the Orthodox ones, but I don't speak a word of Hebrew). So I decided to experience church on Christmas Eve.

Checking out churches online, I found almost none that offered political neutrality. Most heralded their progressive credentials, welcoming the transgendered, but not conservatives.

I was pleased to find an Episcopal church whose website focused on religion, not ObamaCare. I left a message for the priest that I was looking for a church that didn't press a political agenda because I wasn't a liberal.

I received an icy reply from the priest, the Reverend Lucy, who said with barely-contained disgust, "I don't think you should check us out."

Her response left me shaken and angry. I understand that leftists despise conservatives. I have seen that creepy look of pure hatred when I naïvely told a leftist friend about my political conversion.

But an Episcopal priest rejecting me during the holiest time of year? Isn't anything or anyone sacred?"

No, Robin, nothing is sacred. At least when it comes to leftists whose only focus is to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them.

This is exactly what happens when politics control religion. The life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ gets drowned by the social justice crowd. Notice I said "when politics control religion." This is different than when religion controls politics. It may seem confusing or splitting hairs, but I see the Catholic Church's commitment to defending the rights of the unborn as an example of the latter.

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, encouraged U.S. Catholics to express our faith when debating politics. I know Catholicism has not shied away from continuing to uphold the dignity of life whether arguing the case for the unborn's rights or rejecting euthanasia as a valid option for a person in ill health. These issues are a perfect example of how a thinking Christian allows their faith to direct their actions in society.

The same could be said for a liberal Catholic who believe in pro-choice and same-sex marriage. However, there is a difference. Liberalism has taken the place of God within these "diverse" churches. And as far as being "tolerant," they fail miserably, showing an amazing level of intolerance toward those who do not share their views. When you get right down to it, those who are more traditional usually show a great deal of restraint toward those who differ with their beliefs. Leftists only show visceral hatred such as "Robin of Berkley" experienced.

The Church of Jesus Christ has been created to preach the gospel and save souls. That is its first and primary role. Liberals will twist the gospel and claim it's about "justice" but yet conveniently forget that God, who is holy and just, extended the gift of grace to us by judging the sin of the world and allowing His holy and perfect Son to pay the price. And it was a raw, bloody, nightmarish judgement of death by crucifixion. One way you know you're in a leftist church: they either minimize or deny the crucifixion and its meaning.

I don't have a problem with churches caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, or working to help those in need. I believe we are called to minister God's love to this world. But I do have a problem when a church makes those activities its primary purpose for existence. I definitely have a problem when such a church condemns a soul searching for salvation as "undesirable" because they don't hold the same leftists views. In fact, I'll come right out and say that such a church is no church at all but an auxiliary organization of socialism.

When politics trump religion in a church, the process of sanctification goes out the window. Instead of focusing on becoming holy, that church focuses on egalitarianism - which is a warped way of saying that life should be fair for everyone.

When did Jesus Christ say that life was to be fair? What I remember more than anything are His words, "The world has hated Me. It will hate you, too, if you follow Me." He and His disciples both experienced and spoke about suffering. Where are the lessons in a leftist church about redemptive suffering? Zilch. It's all about a sense of entitlement and avoidance of personal responsibility.

Look, if I'm a drug-addicted prostitute, it's no one else's fault by my own. If I'm a victim, I'm a "victim" of my own stupid choices. Period. I believe in churches encouraging such a person to seek God and turn from a sinful life but I don't see how it would help if she was given money and yet no Biblical counsel or challenge to seek first the Kingdom of God and receive the Sacraments.

When the Samaritan woman approached Jesus at the well, did He give her training on how to recognize abusive personalities or a class on boosting her self-esteem so she didn't hop from man to man? No. Instead, Jesus gave her first what she really needed: the Water of Life. Only after the conversation about the Water of Life did He ask her about her living situation.

This is a pattern with our Savior and Lord. He was more concerned with the state of someone's soul than with their finances, their homes, or their social status. What was paramount to Him was ministering first to their need for salvation. Healing or feeding crowds were only vehicles in which to transport a person to behold God and notice their need for His forgiveness. I've noticed over the years that churches get in trouble when they deify the vehicle, not God.

Robin later wrote an email to this Episcopalian priestess. "In this holiest of seasons, I wish for you a change of heart, an opening of the heart, to those who come to your door. Because when someone makes a phone call to you -- which isn't easy -- they are in need of God. Don't you, as a minister, have a sacred duty to respond with God's infinite love and mercy?"

There was no response. Because when you're a leftist, Robin, the liberal ideology takes precedence over everything else. Including a soul in need of salvation.

Oh, and by the way - Robin ended up celebrating Christmas eve in a Catholic church.

Women Religious Dissenters Show True Colors to Vatican #Catholic

From LifeSite News, emphasis mine:

December 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Some groups of American Catholic sisters are continuing to defy the Vatican's attempts to assess their lifestyles and choice of mission. Many say they are simply refusing to fill out the questionnaire for the Vatican's Apostolic Visitation, an investigation into the lives and work of the remaining US religious orders.

Others have complained that the Vatican has not been forthcoming about the reason for the investigation and say they fear being forced back into more traditional patterns of religious life.

Sister Elizabeth Ohmann, a Franciscan nun who works for Humane Borders, an immigration lobby group, noted that the investigation is focusing on active sisters rather than those cloistered in monasteries. She told the Arizona Daily Star that she believes the Visitation is targeting those communities that dissent from Catholic teaching, especially on sexuality.

"I think - and this is my opinion - that they are saying they believe it's the active communities that are really encouraging, say, women priests and are also upholding the rights of homosexuals and even homosexual marriage," she said.

Ohmann admitted that she and some of her fellow sisters were among these, saying, "Are we going contrary to Rome's teachings? I say, 'Yes, it is contrary to Rome's teachings.' But it is not contrary to my own conscience."

Full Article

I am certain these women religious are aware of the investigation's purpose. It's already been shown that vocations in the United States have suffered a decline since 1965. It also has been made clear that the older communities who abandoned tradition and embraced feminism and Marxism are shutting down. The religious communities that are flourishing are the ones who live in community and wear the habit.

My point about this article is that it raises several questions I have that I'd like to pose to my Catholic readers: When is it time to question one's decisions made with a "Catholic conscience?" When is it right to disagree with the Magisterium? From the Catholic Church Catechism:

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. (Catechism, Part Three, Article Six no. 1785)

I ask because these sisters seem to think that going against the Church teaching of homosexuals living chaste lives is wrong. They also misunderstand the role of the masculine within the priesthood, instead embracing a philosophy of "equality" that has as much to do with it as an apple with an orange.

I am glad for this investigation because the women religious who are dissenters are now showing their true colors to the Vatican. They don't care about their dwindling numbers and the very justifiable reasons that the Vatican should be concerned. They aren't looking at this investigation as an opportunity to explore together what they might do to improve vocations. No. Instead, they are banging the "Me-Me" drum. It's all about them. Not about the future of vocations and the continuity of our faith in the world - but them and their radicalism.

This, more than anything, should show the women religious an important lesson. If they have truly died to their own desires in order to fully serve Jesus Christ, would they be putting up such a fight? If they examined their own conscience "before the Lord's Cross," meditating upon what He has sacrificed and what was given to us as a gift, would there be any change in their hearts?

I wonder. Because it's obvious they have no intention of being "guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." It seems they've already placed themselves as the higher authority, answering to no one.

To Rev. Michael G. Ryan on the New Roman Missal Translation: What If We Said Go For It? #Catholic

I've said it before and will say it again: did I return to the Catholic Church at an exciting time, or what?!

Rev. Michael G. Ryan wrote an article entitled "What If We Said 'Wait'? The Case for a Grass Roots Review of the New Roman Missal," published in America Magazine. I found the article "fisked" hilariously by Fr. Zuhlsdorf. His comments in red were so funny that I found myself several times bursting into laughter.

Some of the changes in the liturgy can be seen here. Below are a few examples:

Present text:

The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

New Text:

On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.


Present Text:

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned
through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.


New Text:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

I for one, cannot wait for this beautiful new translation. Fr. Ryan seems to be blind to the effects of the bland liturgy that was given to us after Vatican II. When I think of the words, "he took the cup" versus the new translation, "he took this precious chalice into his holy and venerable hands," there is simply no contest.

What our current translation of the Roman Missal did, at least for me, was strip the Mass of any sense of awe and mystery of what we were experiencing. It rendered the power of the gospel almost impotent and about as interesting as reciting a grocery list.

I know I may come across as being harsh. But after years of being involved in the "touchy-feely" auditoriums of non-denominationalism, I can attest to the fact that when you water down the sacred, you get weak faith. Church, in my eyes, should be like a spiritual "boot camp" of sorts. It should help me develop my faith so I can take a lickin' in the world and still keep on tickin'. There are hard issues in our world but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Those who imagine that our life "today" is so much more complicated than those who were living "yesterday," miss the point that humanity never changes. We may have electricity and a bunch of overpriced gizmos to collect, but anger, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, and sloth - hasn't changed. Selfishness hasn't changed. Cruelty still exists.

What can equip us as believers against such a sinful world and our sinful nature? The lulling words of insipid praise songs and the rousing calls to join Marxist organizations that promise "justice for all?" And how would that help a believer if indeed they were to face a firing squad to be martyred for the faith? Would such a believer try to remind their oppressor that they supported the power coup all along? Would the issue of faith, sacrifice, and submission play a part in the conversation?

This is why I love the idea of a newer, beefier, translation. St. Paul said there was a time to move from milk to meat and sadly, many Catholics have only had milk to drink. (And watered-down milk, at that.) The new liturgy will challenge many, yes - but instead of being viewed as a "threat" to one's prayer life, why can't it be viewed as a challenge to grow? Why can't the new translation be received as a call to go deeper in our faith? Because that's how I'm viewing it.

Over the year, as I've spoken to a few people about why I returned to the Catholic Church and in particular, fallen in love with the Traditional Latin Mass, I've used the illustration of the "tough teacher" in schools. I think if we were all honest, we would admit that it was those teachers that we "loathed," the ones who continued to harp on us and claim we could do better - who actually did get our best. We may have given it to these teachers grudgingly, but we gave it to them. And secretly, we had to admit to ourselves that we were the better for it.

The TLM demands something of me. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this more than ever. Who demands anything of me, other than my boss? Who requires that I show up, giving it my all, my everything, in order to acquire something so precious as my spiritual growth, as the TLM does?

I've always felt a little hesitant about referring to the Mass as a "celebration." It is, of course, a celebration of our Lord's victory over death, but it is a somber, more serious matter to ponder. Puppets and sappy liturgical dance are inappropriate during such a time of reflection. Such creative expressions of the faith are fine for special events outside of the Mass but during Mass, we are remembering something profound. Puppets and liturgical dancing only serve as distractions.

I think the new translation is going to mix it up wonderfully, and for those who balk at change can be reminded that most of them voted for a President who made "hope and change" his motto. Change, we've been told, is good so that we can progress. I think the new Roman Missal is going to help the Church get out of a rut, a sad, barren rut - in order to move us forward into rich fertile faith that will mean something again. I don't think I'm the only one saying to the USCCB: Go for it.

Socialism, Feminism, and Christianity

That's a pretty ambitious title for a post, I know. However, while visiting my Yahoo! page on Sunday, I noticed the symbol for woman was standing in for one of the "O's." I wondered what it meant. So I clicked on it. I was taken to a page that talked about Yahoo! celebrating International Women's Day. (March 8) When I read that in 1909, February 28 was declared National Women's Day by the Socialist Party, I was surprised but intrigued. I decided to do a little more digging.

Turns out the U.S. Socialist Party page has this as their statement of principles:

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.

Now think about this. This is a political system that wants to level the playing field. They don't want us to see color. They don't want us to see class. But they want us to notice there is a difference between men and women and that women - in its estimation - need special treatment.

This, after all the years of advancement for women. How long have women been able to vote, travel into space, fight on a battlefield, and lead a company from the Chief Executive Officer's office? But yet that's not enough. At this point, all I can do is shake my head and realize some people live in an alternate universe.

Feminists have bothered me for years; ever since for a brief moment in time, I considered myself one. At one point in my early twenties, I started to veer toward feminism. I attended events and frequented the radical bookstores. However, it didn't take long for me to notice that almost every book about feminism would open with a vicious attack on the Bible and Christianity. I found it interesting that rarely would I read any critical thought toward Islam or other belief systems that clearly treated women much worse than Western culture. There is a reason for this.

It is because feminism is just another attempt by the enemy to control women. It is highly ironic that feminism - with all its bravado of 'freeing' women - actually enslave women even more. It is a very slick strategy to continue to make women think they are oppressed when in fact, Western civilization has produced one of the most free climates for women the world has ever known. There is nothing, at this point, that a woman cannot do in the United States of America. I suspect it isn't too different in Europe. Women have not only excelled in institutions of higher learning, they have gone on to succeed in every field possible. The only area this hasn't happened is in football, where brute force is necessary to get a small, leather ball across 100 yards of grass. But other than that, women are in every sport. Even, to my distaste and disagreement, boxing.

Socialism is about control. It is about telling you that your hard work, whatever you produce, is not for you alone to enjoy. You must share. There is no choice in the matter. It doesn't matter if you were sharing before by giving to charity, a religious institution, or your family and friends. What matter in a socialist world is that individuality is destroyed and the collective embraced. It is one step closer to Communism and we all know what a splendid 'success' that has been.

So why would feminists be so drawn to socialism? Well, there is the obvious hatred for men and their deep resentment that men have somehow 'stolen' something from them. Then there is the inequality of wealth, which in their eyes, should not exist. In the socialist world, wealth - which is the result of effective productivity - is punished.

I don't have any clear answers. But I know something is there and feel that as a Christian woman, I need to be prepared spiritually to address it. Because I think it's going to get worse. I think we're going to see more feminists get more angry and push our society toward socialism. (In fact, this is the goal of quite a few "radical women.") However, we know these women do not speak for all women and in fact, a consistent Christian response from women will be necessary.

I do notice this: when you take away God, you have a void. Many of the feminist books I read in my early twenties would immediately fill that void with a "Goddess" spirituality. Take away the God-designed purpose of women bringing life into the world and nurturing it; and you have a void. What happens when a woman rebels against God? What did Eve do when she rebelled? She convinced Adam to join her in sin. They felt shame for the first time. They hid from God.

Unfortunately, what started out as an attempt to create more opportunity for women and ensure they were paid fairly for their work has evolved into a hate-filled philosophy that denies God, resents motherhood and family, and ridicules men. It is an ugly system that only produces bitter women who tragically fall short of God's purpose for them.

Women are bearers of life. Think of that. God has ordained women to conceive life and bring it forth into the world. What better way can the enemy kill life than deceive women?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the Water of Life. He came to bring Life into the world, and to free men and women from the bondage of sin. But look at what socialism and feminism has produced: poverty, misery, and tyranny. One doesn't have to look far to see that as a political system, it is substandard. It simply hasn't helped people lead better lives. It has produced death. Death of freedom. Death of ideas and creativity. Death of progress.

Life, and its intrinsic creativity, will always be a threat to our enemy. He prowls about, seeking whom he may devour. Stem-cell research funding is just another tentacle of his diabolical plan to destroy life. May women rise up and defend life, on all fronts. Our future generations depend on it.

Be Prepared: The Onslaught of the Left

I wish I did not have to write this post, but yet I feel as though I have an obligation to do so. I see things at times in our society, sort of a cultural handwriting-on-the-wall, and I pray - asking God what to do with this information. Is it true? Or am I overreacting?

Ironically, the day that Sen. Barack Obama is announced as our President Elect, I received the following comment to one of my older posts regarding homosexuality:

you people are all hate - hate anything that doesn't fit in your box of normalcy. you don't have to like gay people, but keep your judgmental opinions to yourself.

gay people are born that way. they don't have a choice. no one chooses to be part of a judged group. my cousin and his partner are gay, live in suburbia and are blissfully happy and attend church regularly. so please do not assume that all homosexuals are disgraced and ashamed with themselves.

the reason so many gay people are upset and clinically depressed is because they can't be themselves. they can't be themselves because of people like you

we could all certainly make the same assumptions about good christian soldiers who are closet alcoholics or child molesters and the list goes on.

Jesus doesn't hate. He loves everyone. Judge and ye shall be judged.

I have to admit it was extremely tempting to respond in kind. When people attack, it's natural to react and with just as much passion. But I know this is not the response Jesus would advocate.

Jesus Christ did not hate people. He hated sin. He hated sin so much that He was willing to die an excruciating painful and humiliating death in order to pay the penalty for our sin. He was the perfect sacrificial Lamb, who takes away the sin of the world.

It was also tempting to 'fisk' the comment and respond line by line, but I'm going to refrain in order to point something out. The above comments are a fine example of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the handbook for leftist activists during the 70's. I am going to point out six of them that have been used in justifying the comments above:


2) Never go outside the experience of your people

Gay activists live in a bubble. It's a constant "Us vs. Them" mentality and there is no middle ground. Either you embrace them - and in doing so, never judge the behavior as being sinful - or name the sin and be labeled a hater. If you notice, most responses to anyone who does not agree with the Gay Agenda is first, a defense of the sinful behavior and then an attack on you for noticing it. It always begins first with their experience. There is no other way they know how to open the dialog. In their eyes, they are being "attacked" when someone simply disagrees with their sexual preferences. When someone disagrees with me by stating the chocolate cake, which I find so divine, is not attractive to them - I don't get mad and yell at them. I say, "to each their own," and move on. Radical gays are obsessed with what people think of them. Disagreement, especially polite and civil disagreement - will not be tolerated.


3) Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy

"You have no idea how difficult it is to live as a gay man in this country!" Or some such. Whatever the outcry, you can be sure it will focus on how you are outside of their own predicament and as such, cannot possibly comprehend how they feel. Gay activists are some of the most dramatically injured people in the U.S. When activists do this, they are trying to get you off point and confuse the issue. The ultimate goal is to make you feel unsure of your argument, your convictions, your values - and in that moment, they will take advantage by pressing on to the next tactic.


4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules

How effective this has been with many conservatives and also Christians. How these radicals love to point out how far we have fallen from what the Bible commands us to do. You know what? They're right. I've often told those who ridicule Christianity that I absolutely have fallen short of God's expectations for me. It is why I pray all the time and ask for His mercy and forgiveness. Don't let them trip you up on this one. Agree and move on.


5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon

Another classic tactic that has been used quite extensively with Christians, especially when Christians stand up for the Culture of Life and against homosexuality. Remember what Jesus said about those who are persecuted. What is interesting is that we've already been told that we would be hated for holding firm to the truths of the Bible. Homosexuals, however, have only been told they are condemned for their behavior. With each word of ridicule that falls upon us, we should pray that God would have mercy upon those who say such things because when it comes down to it, none of us would be here without His mercy.


8) Keep the pressure on

The radicals never tire. This is their "bible" and they believe in it as fervently as we believe in God's Word. As they keep the pressure on, we must resist the attempts to wear us down and persevere in faith.


13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

Ah, this is the most clever of them all. Christians are the target for such hateful words. We will be accused of not loving as Jesus would have us love and that is the polarization point. Keep repeating the truth and repeat it again and again, and again. Jesus loved people. He hated sin. This is as true for the homosexual as it is for the alcoholic and the child molester. Jesus Christ hated sin's hold upon man, how it affected his whole life, his relationships with both himself and others, and the ripple effect it had upon society.

We were created to love and be loved. When we sin, we fall short of God's expectations of us. We choose to think of self first before God. In fact, we get wrapped up in "self" so much that we fail to see the consequences of our behavior.

With sin, there is not only a separation from God, which is devastating enough, but a separation from who we were created to be. If I'm on the floor in a drunken heap, I certainly won't be available to a friend who needs a supportive shoulder to cry upon. I won't be available to work in order to help the company that employs me. I won't be able to function as a productive member of society on any level because I'm stuck in my own mess. That's what sin does. It sticks us so deeply inside ourselves that we miss being a blessing to those around us.

So learn about the Rules for Radicals because I believe they are going to be used in greater measure against us.

But as always: Greater is He that is in you than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)