Pewsitter News Pewsitter News en-us Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:28:56 GMT Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:28:56 GMT none <![CDATA[ Contentious Labor Contract Agreement Reached for San Francisco Catholic Schools ]]>
Contentious Labor Contract Agreement Reached for San Francisco Catholic Schools

By Frank Walker

The Archdiocese of San Francisco has released details of the just-reached union agreement.  Apparently much of the protections for Catholic identity and the personal Catholic character of employees has been maintained.

From the Diocesan statement:


2015-18 Collective Bargaining Agreement – Preamble Clauses on Catholic Education

WHEREAS, the Union and its members recognize the unique nature of the Archdiocesan high school system in that it is Roman Catholic, committed to provide education within the framework of Catholic principles; that Catholic teachings and precepts shall remain paramount throughout the term of this Agreement; and that nothing in the Agreement shall be construed as interfering in any way with the Superintendent’s functions and duties insofar as they are canonical; and

WHEREAS, the Union and its members recognize that all lay teachers covered by this Agreement shall perform all their duties as set forth in this Agreement in accordance with the doctrines and precepts of the Roman Catholic Church, and shall conduct themselves at all times during the performance of those duties in a manner in keeping with the standards of the Church; and

WHEREAS, the Parties to this agreement acknowledge that the purpose of Catholic schools is to affirm Catholic values through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to help students learn and develop their critical and moral faculties; and

WHEREAS, teachers are expected to support the purpose of our Catholic schools in such a way that their personal conduct will not adversely impact their ability to teach in our Catholic High Schools; and

WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that disputes about teacher conduct on and off the job are subject to the grievance procedure to determine whether such conduct has adversely impacted the teacher’s ability to teach in our Catholic High Schools.



2015-18 Collective Bargaining Agreement –Preamble Clauses on Catholic Education


2015-18 Collective Bargaining Agreement – Preamble Clauses on Catholic Education


WHEREAS, the Union and its members recognize the unique nature of the Archdiocesan high school system in that it is Roman Catholic, committed to provide education within the framework of Catholic principles; that Catholic teachings and precepts shall remain paramount throughout the term of this Agreement; and that nothing in the Agreement shall be construed as interfering in any way with the Superintendent’s functions and duties insofar as they are canonical; and


WHEREAS, the Union and its members recognize that all lay teachers covered by this Agreement shall perform all their duties as set forth in this Agreement in accordance with the doctrines and precepts of the Roman Catholic Church, and shall conduct themselves at all times during the performance of those duties in a manner in keeping with the standards of the Church; and


WHEREAS, the Parties to this agreement acknowledge that the purpose of Catholic schools is to affirm Catholic values through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to help students learn and develop their critical and moral faculties; and


WHEREAS, teachers are expected to support the purpose of our Catholic schools in such a way that their personal conduct will not adversely impact their ability to teach in our Catholic High Schools; and


WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that disputes about teacher conduct on and off the job are subject to the grievance procedure to determine whether such conduct has adversely impacted the teacher’s ability to teach in our Catholic High Schools.

... ]]>
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ JPII Medical Research Inst. Warns on the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS ]]>
JPII Medical Research Inst. Warns on the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS

By Frank Walker

The Return of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Pro-Life Institute Ready for the Challenge


Coralville, IA, August 20, 2015

The Ice Bucket Challenge has returned, and the John Paul II Medical Research Institute challenges every Catholic to participate in this year’s challenge.

“We encourage everyone who supported our Institute through last year’s ALS Ice Bucket Challenge to once again join us by participating and challenging others this year. While 2014 brought awareness to the need for ALS funding, it’s still crucial for all of us to continue supporting ALS research through donations,” Jay Kamath, CEO of John Paul II Medical Research Institute, said.

The Ice Bucket Challenge was a global phenomenon last year as hundreds of thousands of people dumped ice water over their heads to raise money for ALS research. The John Paul II Medical Research Institute received its share of ALS donations and raised over $450,000 from all 50 states and 38 countries. The Institute gained popularity after the Archbishop of Cincinnati Dennis Schnurr voiced concerns about the ALS Association’s support for embryonic stem cell research and urged Catholics to donate to the John Paul II Medical Research Institute instead.

Over 300 medical research organizations either support or participate in embryonic stem cell research, and last year’s Challenge raised awareness that fundraisers’ money could be funding efforts that go against their beliefs. The Institute is one of a select few groups focusing on medical research that does not support or participate in embryonic stem cell or aborted fetus research.

Using only adult stem cells and IPS cells, the scientists at the John Paul II Medical Research Institute are working to find better treatments and hopefully a cure for ALS. However, medical research requires constant funding, and now that August is here, the John Paul II Medical Research is reaching out so everyone participates in the Challenge again starting this month.

“Continued support will enable our Institute to build on our current research milestones as we work toward finding a cure for ALS and possible cures for other diseases such as Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis as well. While the science industry is an expensive endeavor, we’re committed in our mission to use ethical research efforts to develop better therapies and cures for a variety of diseases,” Kamath said.

And what did JP2MRI do with all that money? 90 percent of donations for ALS went directly toward ALS research. Their science team produced a number of stem cell lines for ALS and other neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis, and these lines have the potential to enter clinical trials.

“We hope that you will help make this year’s ALS Ice Bucket Challenge even more successful than 2014,” Kamath says. “Every donation helps.”


Jennifer Moy

2500 Crosspark Rd.

Coralville, IA 52241

Phone: (319) 655-3000




About JP2MRI: Founded in 2006, John Paul II Medical Research Institute is a pro-life non-profit based in Iowa. They specialize in adult stem cells to find cures for cancer, neurological diseases, rare diseases, and chronic diseases. Their institute does NOT conduct research with embryonic stem cells and believes in upholding the dignity of all human life.

... ]]>
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Who Does Pope Francis Love More, America or Obama? ]]>
Who Does Pope Francis Love More, America or Obama?

By Frank Walker

                                  Not abusing Capitalism but still hard-working

Vatican's La Stampa has an interview with Obama's ambassador to the Vatican, former Catholic Relief Services Director, Kenneth Hackett about Francis' upcoming visit to the United States and Cuba.  Apparently the whole thing was hatched not so much at the invitation of the House's Boehner, but Obama.

The President invited him to the United States?

Yes, the President invited him and more importantly, in the context of that invitation, the dynamic, the personal interaction, was more than warm; they hit it off on a number of issues including, I think, migration, poverty, exclusion, and people falling through the cracks. Those are the kind of things that I believe they were discussing behind closed doors. As soon as we were let in immediately afterwards you could feel the atmosphere in the room was very positive. So somehow Pope Francis had a very positive view of President Obama and what he is trying to do, and they clicked. And I think that led to his decision to come.  

Then the following September I carried the invitation from Speaker Boehner to speak to Congress and I probably said at the time that this is a long shot, but Francis picked it up and there it goes.

The UN was not on the cards in the very beginning because we kept hearing it’s going to be a pastoral visit, and yes he’ll go to the White House, and then he’ll go to Congress.  But all of a sudden (UN Secretary General) Ban Ki-moon came in and locked down the UN because a lot of people were saying it is the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s visit to the UN, and Francis could speak about climate and about the sustainable development goals, and so they were creating an environment for him to speak at the UN.

"The dynamic, the personal interaction, was more than warm?"  What does that mean? If it was more than warm was it hot?  Did the pope have the least bit of Christian council or concern for the world in the face of a man like Obama?  Is President Obama Pope Francis' favorite person in the world?  Was he in love?  Is Obama a spiritual guide to Pope Francis?

What was the President’s reaction afterwards?

As you know well, the private conversation went on for a very long time. And coming out of the Pope’s meeting Obama was refreshed. He was happy!

Obama was refreshed after a very long conversation via interpreter?  Was there a shower in there?  Why was he so happy?  Did his meeting with Francis succeed beyond his wildest dreams?

What is your own personal memory of that meeting?

It was two friends talking about things, even though they had never met before.  As I was seeing it, this was warm and positive, and everything I have heard from the White House since he got back says the President was overjoyed with the visit.

Why is the entire monstrous liberal machine giddy about Francis?  Is he handing over the patrimony of the Church so fast they can't contain their demonic glee?

The lengthy interview is full of spin, but the biggest helping of it is applied to Francis and Communism, I mean, 'anti-Capitalism.'

Some of his statements in the encyclical “on our common home” and in his speech to the Popular Movements, during his visit to Bolivia, were strong critiques of the way the economy is run. Many in the US read them as a strong critique of capitalism.  What do you say to these critics?

I didn’t read them as a strong critique to all forms of capitalism. I think he’s basically saying what his predecessors said, but he is doing it with a Latin flare. He talks about the excesses of capitalism, and as I pick up the paper and I see who has been jailed in this place and that place for some banking scandal, I see there are excesses.  I cannot believe that he is saying that the capitalist system which rewards hard work, good decisions, is totally wrong. He’s certainly not saying that the socialist system is the answer! He just saying don’t abuse things, don’t abuse your capitalism.

 "A Latin flare, eh?"  He has that. 

In Francis' mind having more than someone else is an abuse of freedom.  As he travels to Bolivia and around the world Francis is saying that situation must be fixed.  He wants a new 'system' where things are no longer 'unequal.'  If the free system where you buy goods and services and spend your own money to do so doesn't work, then we need a 'system' where that's restrained, checked.  Francis wants to impose some alternative to our God-given right to our lives and property, and then call it Catholic morality.  That's socialism, communism, Liberation Theology.  Obama loves it and Ambassador Hackett is lying.

He’s certainly has raised this concern in various quarters about the stratification of our society, that so few at the very top have accumulated so much wealth and have left out the entire next three or four levels, and not just the poorest but even those who are struggling to get by on 30,000 dollars with three kids – that’s below the poverty line in some cities.  He recognizes the issues, and I think those who are criticizing him as anti-capitalist are going too far. I may be wrong but that’s the way I read it.

I hope I'm not going too far but, do you know where capitalism isn't 'totally wrong' either?  Cuba.  The state-controlled Cuban labor scheme leaves employees with 4% of every dollar they generate, but that 4% is still some hard-working capitalism.  I may be wrong but that’s the way I read it.



Read more at The Stumbling Block










... ]]>
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Do Your Part to Share the Selfie Francis Faith ]]>
Do Your Part to Share the Selfie Francis Faith

By Frank Walker



The mainstream media is really pushing these life-size cardboard Pope Francises.  Why?  Is it just because it's fun, or funny.  Is it just for the money?

In keeping with previous papal visits, Pope Francis' U.S. visit in September has spurred a mad dash among souvenir sellers. For $160, you can order an official, life-size "cutout" of the pontiff from the group organizing one of the events in Philadelphia.

Why is it so expensive?  Is it a collector's item already?

Those 69-inch "standup" versions of Pope Francis, whose global popularity is perhaps the only thing larger than the replicas themselves, are being placed around Philadelphia so people can take selfies and share them on social media, the Associated Press reported.

So the point is not just to have a big Pope Francis around to bother you.  It's to take a selfie with it and 'share on social media.'

"Pope Francis is described as the people's pope. So we have him in places where many people can see him," World Meeting of Families digital content manager Nancy Caramanico told the news agency. "People are just really excited to be around him and are anticipating his visit to Philadelphia."

Nineteen-year-old college student Jennifer D'Angelo will be in school when Pope Francis visits her hometown, the AP reported, so she took the opportunity to pose with a two-dimensional cutout of the pope on display at a food court.

"It seems like he's trying to bring the Catholic Church together," D'Angelo, 19, said. "I think he's doing a great job. I'm just kind of sad that I'm not going to be in the city when he comes."

Aren't all the popes 'people's popes?'  Why just Francis?  Was Benedict only for rich fancy people?

Is Pope Francis bringing the Catholic Church together?  I think he's just rallying non-Catholics, dissidents, media people, and dictators.  How many actual Catholics are excited to be around Pope Francis?  Are we thinking with our televisions?

For those seeking a less-grand papal presence, you can also order a variety of posters, a coffee mug emblazoned with some of the pope's more notable quotations, and a 10-inch tall Pope Francis "plush doll" that is "surface wash only."

Merchandising papal visits has a long tradition in the United States and elsewhere. In 1987, the U.S. tour undertaken by Saint John Paul II, then in the ninth year of his pontificate, inspired such items as a "Pope-Scope," a cardboard tube with small mirrors at an angle, so people could see his motorcade over the heads of others. Other souvenirs included buttons, a T-shirt inscribed "Your Holiness, Welcome to Texas" and additional booklets, a selection of which was for sale via the online auction site eBay for $49.99.

Everything that happens in FrancisChurch is always framed as part of a long tradition but it's not.  It just manipulates and morphs traditions.  It abuses them.

Six years later, mindful of such kitsch as "Pope-on-a-Rope" soap bars, Catholic leaders in 1993 prepared for another Pope John Paul II visit to America by hiring the Famous Artists Merchandising Exchange of Dayton, Ohio, to handle licensing of the pope's image, according to The New York Times (paywall).

"More than 100 items were deemed acceptable, including those … approved to bear the Pope's countenance: medallions, T-shirts, posters, postcards, lithographs, fanny packs and the Pope-Scope," the newspaper reported.

Perhaps one of the most notable pope-related products emerged during a 1965 visit to New York by Pope Paul VI. It came during a newspaper strike, leaving journalists for The New York Times and other print outlets to cover a story they couldn't distribute in those pre-Internet days. The answer? An "instant book" created by Times staffers and Bantam Books, a paperback publisher that released 500,000 copies of the story within four days of the visit. As the Times reported, Pope Paul VI "got his copy for free."

Don't be fooled.  A few vendors promoting and capitalizing off previous papal visits is nothing like the worldwide media/marketing efforts behind Francis today.

At the top of the article there is an enormous photo  of a man kneeling in prayer before his Pope Francis cutout and grasping its cardboard hand. Francis swag is not about fun or money.  It's McKinsey & Company's idea of worship, worship of their new catholicism.

If St. Peter lived in our time and had access to cardboard images and selfies, would he make sure the countries he evangelized were filled with life-size statues of himself first?  Is there going to be a single image of Christ anywhere near Francis next month?  I suppose one or two are unavoidable.

The Francis cutout is symbolic because his papacy really a contrived event.  It's something orchestrated and Francis is just filling the life-size pope spot within it.

Real Francis is not flat.  He's very round and so is the Church.  It has depth and it lives.  But FrancisChurch doesn't.  It's just a pasted veneer, a stage set.



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The World Isn't Killing the Church. The Bishops Are. ]]>
The World Isn't Killing the Church. The Bishops Are.

By Frank Walker

                                                      Not racist

Christopher Manion has had quite enough of Catholic leaders using Holy Mother Church and her faithful for their nefarious political schemes.  Not only do they pretend their agenda is noble rather than lawless and evil.  They smear the true and obedient members of the Church as murderous bigots!  Why on Earth must we pretend that these robed men are our Apostles?  They're nothing like Christians.

Millions of Americans, including many Catholics, were stunned when Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Catholic Archbishop of New York, attacked opponents of illegal immigration as “nativists” in a recent and widely-circulated column in a liberal New York tabloid.

Unfortunately, Cardinal Dolan’s outburst represents a long line of liberalism on the part of America’s bishops — a position based not only on their “Social Justice” leftism, but because the welfare state which they celebrate doles out over a billion dollars a year to their Non-Government Organizations (Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Migration and Refugee Services, and so on).

And Cardinal Dolan is not alone. In fact, he is merely echoing his colleague in Los Angeles, Archbishop José Gomez. Gomez routinely attacks opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants, accusing them with a string of strong epithets. In turn, he is merely echoing his fellow bishops in his native Mexico, who frequently rise to condemn “the arrogant, xenophobic, and racist attitude of the United States” (to which Abp. Gomez adds “bigotry”).

Is it 'racist' for Ireland to prefer mainly to be comprised of Irishmen, for Italy to prefer Italians, Germany Germans and Japan Japanese?  How about some deference toward Christian backgrounds?  Is that immoral?  What about Muslims?  How about criminals?

Must we choose between being fools and the enemies of our Bishops?

Nonetheless, the notion that all Caucasian Americans are guilty until proven innocent goes far to explain Cardinal Dolan’s unctuous condescension as he recalls his days as a teacher.

Any college student, he implies, knows that to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens (a term he refuses to acknowledge, by the way), or to demand that they follow the law (including the Ten Commandments) is nativist, backward — and anti-Catholic.

This unwarranted assertion cannot go unchallenged, since it is both unjust and counter-factual. Counter-factual because many Catholics are among the millions of Americans who oppose Obama’s program to import as many Third-World immigrants, legal and illegal, into the United States as possible.

Moreover, many of those same immigrants are not Catholic.

It is unjust because the Cardinal implies that anyone who disagrees with him is nativist — as though support of amnesty for illegal aliens were a requirement of Catholic Faith and Morals. This grievously overstates the matter.

What is required by Catholic Faith and Morals goes unmentioned: the doctrine on contraception and other sexual sins contained in Humanae Vitae.

Yet, in 2013 Cardinal Dolan bragged on national television that he has “only rarely, in my 37 years as a priest” taught the truths of that genuinely Magisterial document.

What is it that induces our bishops to ignore the Church’s timeless teachings, and instead browbeat us with their political preferences disguised as moral imperatives?

Well, as my father used to tell his Notre Dame Law students for thirty years, “if you take the first bribe, you may as well take the rest.”

So permit me ask a parallel classroom question to those that Professor Dolan shared with his college students years ago.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB for short) and its subsidiaries, as well as individual Catholic dioceses, receive over a billion dollars a year from the U.S. taxpayer.

Now, consider: Cardinal Dolan has exuberantly announced, on national television, that America’s bishops want to be Obama’s “cheerleaders.”

Can it be that our beloved bishops have — unconsciously, of course, just like the Cardinal’s target audience of “nativist” lay Catholics — could it be that our bishops have been bribed into silence by that billion dollars a year?

And could it be that our beloved bishops - who have watched more than thirty million of the faithful become “former Catholics” — could these prelates actually support amnesty because they want to keep the pews filled while they please their government paymasters?

These are merely questions, of course, not unjust accusations.

It seems today that the Catholic Church has no bishops, no shepherds.  That is the only reason that the flock is scattered and lost.  A bishop is not a bishop if he shows contempt for his faithful flock, as Cardinal Dolan certainly has, and teaches an anti-doctrine in place of the truth.

We are not Aaron's Israelites dancing around the golden calf and the Cardinal isn't Moses with the tablets.  We are humbly following God into the desert while this jolly prelate fires arrows with Pharaoh's army.  Sorry to be noninclusive but he's just not one of us.



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Who Does Pope Francis Love More, America or Obama? The World Isn't Killing the Church. The Bishops Are; Do Your Part to Share the Selfie Francis Faith ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Who Does Pope Francis Love More, America or Obama? 


The World Isn't Killing the Church. The Bishops Are


Do Your Part to Share the Selfie Francis Faith








... ]]>
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Trump Hits the GOP Skids. No Friendly Fire Necessary ]]>
Trump Hits the GOP Skids. No Friendly Fire Necessary

By Frank Walker


At Creative Minority Report Matt Archbold draws attention to an unfortunate and revealing interview with Donald Trump where he was asked about all those good things Planned Parenthood does other than abortion:

Here's what I would do if the time came: I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good and I know a lot of things are bad. The abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government. Absolutely...I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look as I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women and I would look at that. I would look at other aspects, also. But we have to take care of women. We have to absolutely take care of women. The abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood should not absolutely – should not be funded.

This reminds me of when Ross Perot said he'd erase the deficit by "getting under the hood" and fixing it, or that he'd "get a shovel and clean out the barn."

Archbold writes:

Well that changes things quite a bit, doesn't it? Trump says that the abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood shouldn't be funded but as he knows, money is fungible and Planned Parenthood already says that no taxpayer money goes to abortion. The Hyde Amendment states that no government funding can go towards abortion. So he's saying he would consider funding Planned Parenthood as long as it didn't fund abortion. So Trump wouldn't change anything when it comes to funding Planned Parenthood.

Next 'The Donald' told the world that he'll permit three whole exceptions for abortions too!

I am for the exceptions. You have the three exceptions. I'm for the exceptions. The health of the mother and life of the mother. I absolutely am for the exceptions and so was Ronald Reagan, by the way. There's nothing wrong with that. You have to do it, in my opinion. Now, Marco took a strong stand. I respect him. He believes that. I have – you now it's just a different thing. I am for the exceptions, yes.

Trump failed to cite what the third exception was.  I assume he meant in cases of rape.  Either way, we all know that one exception is every exception because this is murder, and any lying excuse will do.

I think it's probably hard for someone in Donald Trump's business and position to actually be pro-life today.  Very hard.



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ New Sins In FrancisChurch Just Keep Accumulating ]]>
New Sins In FrancisChurch Just Keep Accumulating

By Frank Walker

                                   Ruled as Insufficiently Compelling

Pope Francis has made his universally broad new environmental Catholic doctrine mandatory.  Obey or you're not a true Christian!  You have no choice in the matter because I'm the Pope of course.

How do we specifically comply with this new teaching from God?  There are millions of media outlets, government funded institutions, and 'Catholic' establishments who will provide the necessary action items.

For two years I taught social studies at an inner-city high school; for six years I ran a Catholic Worker shelter for homeless families. Then, almost 20 years ago, I became a full-time animal advocate, confident that such labor is integral to Catholicism.

As one might expect, I received plaudits from fellow Catholics for my anti-poverty and educational work but less support for my animal protection work. Most Catholics I’ve encountered seem to think of such do-gooding as fundamentally removed from religious imperatives.

Yet Pope Francis begs to differ.

“Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork,” Francis wrote in his latest encyclical, “is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”

Get out your FrancisChurch notebook.  Full-time paid animal advocacy fits the bill as being 'essential to a life of virtue!'

On the day Francis released the encyclical, he tweeted, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. #LaudatoSi.”

Leaving aside the modern method of transmission, this statement is not actually remarkable. It’s a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But what does it mean that we should not cause animals to suffer or die needlessly? Surely this admonition demands more of us than that we not personally injure and kill animals. I’m convinced that we are also obligated as Catholics to avoid paying others to kill or harm animals, absent some exceedingly compelling justification.

Is a chicken sandwich exceedingly compelling?  I'm not sure but I definitely feel guilty.  I was hungry but I wasn't exceedingly compelled I must admit.  I wish I could ask Pope Francis but he probably just eats beans.

Put another way, “purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act.” That line also comes from the encyclical, in a paragraph in which Francis applauds consumer boycotts focused on pushing corporations to engage in more ethical practices.

Thinking about consumer choices in the context of animal rights, consider that by far the most needless suffering comes at the hands of the meat industry, which kills about 9 billion land animals annually. These creatures are treated in ways that would warrant cruelty-to-animals charges were dogs or cats similarly abused.

Do you know why purchasing is always a moral choice in FrancisGospel?  It's because he's an anti-capitalist and his hackles rise when anyone is able to do something with money.  Making money a moral choice gives him jurisdiction over every tiny decision people make.  It robs those foolish enough to believe him of their God-given freedom.

Communists think you should get what they give you when they want you to have it and they think they should own everything you've got.  Pope Francis communists (Liberation Theologists) are the same but they pretend it's Christian morality and not just pride, envy, and thievery.

Why does FrancisChurch seem to inevitably lead to putting left wing environmentalist pressure on every tangible industry in the world?  Miners can't mine, Farmers can't farm.  Ranchers can't slaughter cattle.  We can't eat the meat they sell us.  Nobody can have any money or property that someone else doesn't, regardless of their choices or rights.  And if you have enough to do something really productive, then you're really in trouble.

You're money belongs to you, not to Pope Francis and his false preaching on moral choices.  Buying poison or a mafia hit is a bad use of money, not a steak, or a gun, or an acre of land. We used to understand this was foolishness and tyranny.  Why must we now pretend it's our Faith?



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Fr. Bimbi Pays the Baptized to Have Babies ]]>
Fr. Bimbi Pays the Baptized to Have Babies

By Frank Walker

                                    Still good for 88 bucks a month.

The Canadian Catholic Register reports:

A Tuscany priest is offering a baby bonus of more than $2,000 to Italian Catholic families who have three or more children. But there are strings attached.

The gift to parishioners in Staggia, a village close to Siena, was announced online as an “extraordinary contribution” by Fr. Stefano Bimbi, the local Catholic priest.

The $2,210 (2,000 euros) will be handed over only when the children are baptized. Additionally, the offer applies strictly to Italian couples who were married in the church, are residents of the village and have three or more children.

Incentives to have more children are a good thing and this is a wonderful gift for young families open to life, but I must ask:

  • How did we get to a point where we were forced to pay people to do the right thing and to accept the gift of children?
  • Should we reward people simply for not sinning, for refusing to contracept or abort children?
  • Isn't money generally the same incentive people have for thwarting childbirth?  Doesn't that actually pay better?
  • Is this about money or about honor, duty, love, and Heaven?
  • Aren't beasts the creatures who will do things for treats?

Nonetheless, Bimbi said the decision had the potential to help Catholic couples. “Our parish wants to give concrete help in this moment of crisis for families, that with courage accept the gift of a child!” he wrote in the announcement.

The language of reverse pastoral care permeates the Synod documents. The message of softness is immoral.  Childbirth is a moment of crisis?  Is caring for the family you created some kind of heroic courage or is it just decent?  Must we be paid not to be negligent or criminal?

Get up in the pulpit Fr. Bimbi and lay them straight!   Tell them there's far more joy in raising a holy child with love than in being paid to sit there and shove food in their face like some government nanny.  And if they can't hear you because they're not at Mass, why are you giving them 2,000 euro?

The parish coffers are not all “roses and flowers,” the priest said, so its economic affairs council had allocated an unspecified limited sum for the baby project. Bimbi was not immediately available when contacted by Religion News Service to discuss whether anyone had yet taken him up on the offer.

The financial incentive follows a similar initiative by the Italian government, which promised low-income families $88 (80 euros) a month for each child under 3 years old.

Talk about baby factories!  If the Italian Gov't could bump that up to about 1,000 euros there's be some high living in those noisy houses.  What say you, Pope Francis?  It's fine so long as there's not too much soy in the formula and the diapers are sustainable?



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Fr. Bimbi Pays the Baptized to Have Babies; New Sins In FrancisChurch Just Keep Accumulating; Trump Hits the GOP Skids. No Friendly Fire Necessary ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Fr. Bimbi Pays the Baptized to Have Babies


New Sins In FrancisChurch Just Keep Accumulating


Trump Hits the GOP Skids. No Friendly Fire Necessary







... ]]>
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Activist Details Event and Outrage at Orange Diocese 'Catholic' Global Warming Forum ]]>
Bishop Vann Bails, "Protest And Outrage Quite Apparent" - Activist Details Orange Diocese 'Catholic' Global Warming Forum

By Frank Walker


An activist who attended the former Hour of Power Cathedral for the latest in FrancisChurch propaganda, and witnessed the outcry, reports:


On Saturday, August 8th, the Catholic Diocese of Orange held a presentation and community forum to promote Pope Francis' Climate Change Encyclical.  This event was part of a local and national marketing effort by the Catholic church to indoctrinate and convince millions of American Catholics of why they should support the Pope's encyclical.  Many Catholics, like myself, see this encyclical as a political statement reaching far beyond the boundaries of Catholic doctrine.    Over 20 protesters lined up along Chapman Ave. at the entrance to Christ Cathedral to protest the event as well as the Pope's climate change encyclical.  

Activists from Orange County, Los Angeles and the Inland Empire participated in the protest intended to expose the false and misleading premiss of "Climate Change" which has become the battle cry of the globalists, the progressive left and crony capitalist right, and basis for uber destructive legislation in California, AB32 (cap & trade) SB375  (Sustainable Development/Climate Change) and United Nations Agenda 21.  The activists were joined by frustrated and angry Catholics who are unhappy with the Pope's involvement in a politically-motivated movement that they believe does not represent the tenants of the Church.

The purpose of the forum was billed as "a focus on the theology of the encyclical, the global impact of climate change on the poor, and to help build a scientific understanding of climate change and offer a context for how we can begin to address this seminal issue in our own lives and society."   The forum included presentations by Sister Nadine McGuinness (St. Joseph Center-Orange),   Tony Strawa, PdD, Catholic Climate Change Ambassador and Joan Rosenhauer, Catholic Relef Services.

The event was attended by approximately 125 local Catholics and was video taped by one of the activists (see below).

Several concerned Catholics who attended were outraged by not only the content of the forum but also the indoctrination-like format.   In part one, by Sister Nadine came across like a hypnotic mind-manipulation filled with feel-good "love the earth" mantra.   Part two was a poorly constructed and patently false attempt to make the scientific case for climate change, which has been completely disproven and debunked.   Finally, part 3, by Joan Rosenhauer of Catholic Relief Services, flat out exposes the political extortion by the Pope and Catholic church to bully the U.S. into pushing for more of Obama's aggressive Climate Change policy and to push the U.S. into giving billion of dollars to the United Nations to promote social justice.

Several devoted Catholics in attendance were shocked and ashamed that the Church and Pope Francis are promoting such unfounded politically-charged propaganda.  Furthermore, many were angry that there was no opportunity for question/answer.   Questions had to be submitted via question cards however the moderator made it clear that there would be "no discussion or debate" of the science!    To quote one of the attendees "the bishop's job is to shepherd souls to their eternal salvation and the Pope's job is even more solumn to the entire world.   What went on at this forum was NOT Catholic!"   One attendee became so enraged at the content and lack of questions that he stood up and shouted his disagreement.   The bishop did not return to the event for closing prayer, perhaps due to the protests and outrage that was quite apparent.





... ]]>
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Atlanta Archdiocese Giving 'Sanctuary' to Border Jumpers ]]>
Atlanta Archdiocese Giving Sanctuary to Border Jumpers

By Frank Walker

                            Seeking Sanctuary and Legalization


In a country filled with murder and sinful compliance forced upon Christians, the Catholic Church in Atlanta has finally decided to help disobey a law.

Claudia Mariela Jurado fled to the Our Lady of the Americas Catholic Mission with her two young children Friday after federal immigration authorities requested she appear in Atlanta to be deported for illegally entering the country. Using a pair of garden shears, she recently cut off the electronic monitoring bracelet immigration authorities had attached to her ankle. Now living in a converted office at the mission, Jurado said she left El Salvador because a gang extorted money from her there.

It's not illegally harboring a criminal.  It's 'sanctuary.'  At least nobody will try and extort money from her any more in the United States, right?

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time someone has attempted to claim sanctuary in one of our Catholic churches,” Paula Gwynn Grant, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in a prepared statement Tuesday afternoon. “Our Lady of the Americas Mission will provide assistance to the extent that the law and their very limited resources allow, mindful that the mission is not a long-term solution.”

Grant added Catholic teaching “has long supported the principle that every person has the right to live in his or her homeland in security and dignity with opportunities for work.”

Is that a principle or simply an unjust and un-Catholic assertion?

“The Catholic Church continues to advocate for reform of current immigration law,” Grant continued. “We recommend immigrants seek legal counsel to see if they have means to stay in the U.S. and/or to seek asylum under current immigration law. The U.S. Catholic Bishops do not condone unlawful entry or circumventions of our nation’s immigration laws.”

Really? Then why are you hiding Claudia after she cut off her legally-ordered monitor bracelet?  I guess while you 'advocate for reform' of the law you might as well flout it too - in the name of Christ.



See more at











... ]]>
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The Time is Ripe For NatureChurch ]]>
The Time is Ripe For NatureChurch

By Frank Walker

       Part of an inclusive and more just society which respects the demands of nature


The Remnant's Chris Ferrara has the latest and most penetrating take on the frightening Cecil-the-Lion/Planned Parenthood news story juxtaposition, on what this says about the state of the world, and where Pope Francis fits in.

Now this kind of touristic safari “hunting” goes on all the time. It’s a profitable business and generally nobody really cares. But if you’ve paid fifty grand to kill a celebrity animal in such a craven way, and then you lop off its head for a trophy, what can you expect but big trouble if news of the kill goes viral in our emotivist age? Yet while outrage over this incident is one thing, quite another is the fulminating hatred for Cecil’s killer, including demands for his imprisonment and even obscenity-laced threats to kill him in the same manner he killed the lion.

The world is braying for the blood of an obscure Minnesota dentist, to the point where he can no longer extract teeth for a living because he had to shut down his dental office in fear of violence. Yet America’s abortionists go on with their deadly extraction of human beings from their mothers’ wombs—hacking off human, not lion heads. These butchers are undeterred by anything more than a few dogged pro-life demonstrators who face federal prison if they dare to impede access to legally protected abattoirs. The Senate vote to defend Planned Parenthood on account of its trafficking in the organs of aborted babies has failed—of course—yet a resolution to condemn the killing of Cecil the Lion would undoubtedly have passed by a wide margin.

I believe the uproar and the threats of violence would certainly not have occurred without the professional outrage machine to gin them up.  It's not quite true to blame these phenomena on the common mind though.  They aren't necessarily organic events.  They are created and exploited for a purpose.

Abortion goes on because it is not perceived by the generality of people to have any tangible social or even psychic cost. And so the abortion mills keep humming along as part of the background noise of American life. The outrage over Planned Parenthood’s profiteering in human organs is but an implicit confirmation of this: the ongoing mass murder of the unborn had long been accepted as part of the sociopolitical status quo; it was only the harvesting of the victims’ organs that had revived the public’s sense of cruelty to humans. But, oh well, the Senate vote failed. Time to move on to the next issue. And the slaughter of innocents will continue just as before.

What it’s all about, then, is that people have become weary of their own species. To be sure, they still love their loved ones as instantiations of it. But they do not hold the species as such in very high regard. Thus the human sacrifice of 10-year-old Jivan Kohar in a Hindu temple, as reported by CNNonly days ago, was a story that immediately sank beneath the waves. The murder took place in Nepal, where the father of an ailing boy followed the advice of a Hindu “priest” to sacrifice someone else’s son in order to heal his own.

Did you know that human sacrifice could be a characteristic of Hinduism?  We're always taught that it's so peaceful.  Sometimes it seems that the Aztecs have regained Mexico and we know that life can be cheap in the Muslim world.

In fact, human sacrifice remains very much a part of Hindu ritual in various places. In 2006, for example, the Indian press reported the sacrifice of a three-year-old child, “one of dozens of sacrifices” performed by a local Hindu cult: “The two men then used a knife to slice off the child’s nose, ears and hands before laying him, bleeding, in front of Kali’s image.”

But in America the same sort of ritual takes place in abortion mills, where children are sacrificed even without reference to the imaginary favors of an imaginary deity but merely for personal convenience. And our nation lets it happen—year after year, decade after decade. Again, people still love their own but think little of the species to which they belong. As Aristotle observes in The Politics: “…when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.” (Politics, 1253a). Man is weary of himself because he is weary of what he has become. No wonder people in our time are inordinately attached to their pets, who have never betrayed them like their fellow men. No wonder the public mind evinces vastly more outrage over the fate of Cecil the Lion than the fate of Kali the Human.

Our world is learning painfully that the other side of Christendom is not a utopia of love and tolerance. We don't know God so we don't understand man.  Our ancient animist forefathers weren't any less intelligent that we are.  They looked at the world around them and drew what logical conclusions they could without the benefit of revelation, noting their own smallness and fallen state, and giving too much honor and deference to their environment and the 'spirits' behind it.

Man’s weariness of his own nature has penetrated the human element of the Church along with the rest of the nihilistic spirit of this post-Christian age, giving rise to a Church that is now, in practice, post-Catholic in its approach to the world. That is why we are given a 185-page encyclical on the environment, addressed to “every person living on this planet,” while Francis and the Vatican remain silent about such matters as the Planned Parenthood affair, the ongoing massacre of Christians in nation after nation, and the human sacrifice of Jivan Kohar (and who knows how many others) in a Hindu temple only a week ago. And it is why Laudato si reduces millions of human sacrifices on the altar of abortion to “fail[ure] to protect a human embryo.” LS 120.

I think Mr. Ferrara may have just coined the defining term, "Post-Catholic Church,"  and that is certainly what we have.

Last year Cardinal Tauran, head of the supremely ridiculous Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, issued a “Message to Hindus for the Feast Of Deepavali 2014.” No religion on earth has less regard for the human species than this one. Yet, ignoring this cult’s congeries of diabolical superstitions and its age-old oppression of inferior castes, Tauran declared:

As people grounded in our own respective religious traditions and with shared convictions, may we, Hindus and Christians, join together with followers of other religions and with people of good will to foster a culture of inclusion for a just and peaceful society.

We wish you all a HappyDeepavali!

Giving honor to error and to the enemies of Christ and his Church can only be morbid.  Uniting all religions and the secular force which hates them under one cult of nature respects neither life nor God.   It's not the civilized paganism of Ancient Greece.  It's the demonic focus of the primitive, and the culture of death is always in its company.



See more at





... ]]>
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ ObamaRegs: Pope Francis Builds the Murderous Monster State ]]>
ObamaRegs: Pope Francis Builds the Murderous Monster State

By Frank Walker

I shall obey the FrancisGospel and so should you. Let him figure out if it has anything to do with Jesus. I could care less.

Independent Catholic News reports:

President Barack Obama announced plans on Monday to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years by nearly one third. In his address, the President made reference to Pope Francis' moral authority on climate issues, as made clear in his Encyclical Laudato si', saying "taking a stand against climate change is a moral obligation".

If the ruthless Obama state protects and enables the Planned Parenthood machine, then in nurturing gov't. to totalitarian size through false moral approval, Francis distributes the scalpels in the name of God.

President Obama highlighted the dangerous level of emissions currently being produced by American power plants. His Clean Power Plan calls for coal-fired power stations to reduce emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared with 2005 levels.

"With this Clean Power Plan, by 2030, carbon pollution from our power plants will be 32 percent lower than it was a decade ago. The nerdier way to say that is that we will be keeping 870 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution out of our atmosphere," he said.

The plan also intends to promote cleaner, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar generated power.

President Obama stressed the health benefits of cleaner air. "Over the past three decades, nationwide asthma rates have more than doubled. Climate change puts those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital. As one of America's governors has said, 'We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.'"

The Clean Power Plan is widely seen as the cornerstone of President Obama's desire to secure a global treaty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this December, an event which Pope Francis' recently-released Encyclical Laudato si' also seeks to influence.

The Church hasn't been this united to world government since the 13th century.  Only this time around, it doesn't guide rulers spiritually toward the reign of Christ.  It's crushed, pliant, and mutilated at the bottom of a kingdom of lies.



See more at




... ]]>
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ ObamaRegs: Pope Francis Builds the Murderous Monster State; The Time is Ripe For NatureChurch; Atlanta Archdiocese Giving 'Sanctuary' to Border Jumpers ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

ObamaRegs: Pope Francis Builds the Murderous Monster State


The Time is Ripe For NatureChurch


Atlanta Archdiocese Giving 'Sanctuary' to Border Jumpers




... ]]>
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Gay Sexuality is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes. ]]>
Gay Sexuality is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes.

By Frank Walker

          Human beings make choices and that's what sin is all about.

Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called 'immutability' of gayness - as if she doesn't know.  People are much more than sexual organs and their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you're a woman and you don't like the idea of sex with men it probably has less to do with the fact that you don't like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don't like men so much.  And that of course is most certainly a choice.

When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.

Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?

Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.

Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?

Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.

So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?

From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA's definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an 'immutable characteristic.'  Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.

On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of 'mutability,' but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he's a politician.  But the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality.    You can't pervert something that is naturally there.  Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex, or fall in with groups of gay friends, or they respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women.  People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.

Gay attraction is an inclination, but it's also a cultivated habit and a choice.  Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can't make people gay, but it's exactly what they want to do.   That wouldn't be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can't achieve their gay-topia if they don't convince everyone that they're just 'born that way' first.

The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them.  The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle.  Experts might call all these people 'bisexual' if they responded honestly to polls, but they're really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.

The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex.  Just like that other victim group, 'the poor,'  this consists of a shifting group of people.  Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically their entire life.

That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies.  It's a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother, or father.  It's also a rejection of one's own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be.  Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship.  It's not an 'acceptance' of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it's enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.



Read more at The Stumbling Block










... ]]>
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Does the Bishop of Cadiz, Spain Rule At the Whim of Some Tranny? ]]>
Does the Bishop of Cadiz, Spain Rule At the Whim of Some Tranny?

By Frank Walker

    I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent, and YOU kicked me!

Huffpo reports on the latest outrage being perpetrated against one unsuspecting Spanish bishop and faithful Catholics everywhere.

Alex Salinas is 21 years old. He was assigned female at birth, but is now living as his authentic self as a man. He is a "firm believer" and wants to be a godparent at his nephew's baptism but the diocese of Cadiz and Ceuta is standing in his way. According to them, he is not a "suitable" person because of the life he leads, a life not "congruent with faith.”

Alex is a good name for this human.  It can go both ways.  Who designated its original female assignation, the furies?  Whoever assigned it, it was definitely not the same one who 'authenticated' its manhood later.

At least it wants to be a godparent. A godfather would give the bishop too many insane battles at once.

I suppose if we let this 'it' and its friends at the Huffington Post decide what is congruent with the faith instead of its bishop, that makes our faith really gay now.  Everything is gay, even Christ's Church.

However, they do not find their argument to be discriminatory.

The diocese insists that "no discrimination is implied" by impeding a transgender man from being the godfather at the baptism of his nephew in the parish of San Fernando (Cadiz), indicating that it "happens frequently" with people who are not considered "suitable" because of their "lifestyle, opinions, and lack of congruence with Christian life and the Church's regulations."

Discrimination is good.  It's a word stolen from us by liberals in an effort to make us their mind-slaves.  It simply means to tell one thing from another; to choose.  Rashly judging a person based on superficial or unrelated characteristics is a mistake - even a sin, but being able to see that a gay person who can't figure out if it's a man or a woman makes an evil choice for godparent is the good kind of 'discriminating.'  But there's no sense in arguing that it's not discrimination.

When 'discriminating' is illegal, the only ones who are permitted to do it are judges, and even bishops have to leave their deciding to experts.

"To the church, I am still a woman, even though my documents of identification have changed," explained Alex Salinas, who wants the diocese to reconsider their decision, which he took "as a kick in the stomach" because he is a "firm believer."

Why do they always say you kicked them in the stomach when the only thing that happened was that they wished they could kick you in the stomach?

If you say you're a man then you're a man.  If you say you're a firm believer then you're a firm believer.  If you say you're a bishop then provide a statement for the paper and call your lawyers.



Read more at The Stumbling Block








... ]]>
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Being Forced to Honor Gay Marriage is One Thing. Being Uncivil is Quite Another! ]]>
Being Forced to Honor Gay Marriage is One Thing. Being Uncivil is Quite Another!

By Frank Walker

                    Feel the dignity, the civility, and the respect

On Sunday Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta released a statement on the incoherent impeachable ruling from the depraved Supreme Court ordering us all to pretend gay people are married when the state says they are; just like we're forced to pretend men are women, or women are men or something transitional. Being forced to sin, being forced to lie: that's the rule in the Kingdom of Satan.

Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory released this statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same sex marriage:

“Each U.S. Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered has resulted in deep disappointment for some people and vindication for others. If we all agreed on the outcomes of these divisive cases, there would simply be no reason for the Court to convene. This most recent decision is no different.

Nothing special about this decision, yes?  More of the same, people disagreeing with each other.  Can't we all just get along?  Whatever happened to love?

By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.

Thank God SCOTUS can't change Catholic teaching on marriage, yet.  I suppose we should be grateful for that. But what difference does Catholic teaching matter anyway?  What if I'm not Catholic, or I'm a faux-catholic or one of those many people repulsed by the Church for one reason or another? What if I hate the Church and I'm in position to force the world to obey my commands?

This judgment, however, does not absolve either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another. Neither is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions continue to differ from our own. It is a decision that confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before. It does not resolve the moral debate that preceded it and will most certainly continue in its wake.

This evil and illicit ruling is nothing if not a license for incivility and vile behavior.  The problem is the offense only goes one way.  An attack not resisted is conquest.

Did he really call this a 'civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it?'  I find the Archbishop's language 'venomous' -  you know, like something a snake might utter.

This moral debate must also include the way that we treat one another – especially those with whom we may disagree. In many respects, the moral question is at least as consequential and weighty as the granting of this civil entitlement. The decision has offered all of us an opportunity to continue the vitally important dialogue of human encounter, especially between those of diametrically differing opinions regarding its outcome.

Who is having a moral debate?  This is a ruling. The debate's over.  Nor is there a current debate about how we treat each other either.  There is only you and others like you urging decent people to lie down, comply, and neglect to confront evil.  There is no such thing as a 'dialogue of human encounter.'  There is only right and wrong, life and death, Heaven and..What the Hell is this FrancisBishop talking about?

The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

Everything liberals think is complex.  That's what they say when they're getting ready to do something evil.  If you protest you're just too simple.

You can't truly 'uphold' Catholic teaching without correcting, shaming, silencing, and checking the advance of sin.  You can only pretend to, just like Archbishop Gregory does.  They're always handing out human dignity like it's coupons and applying it like it's Vicks.  But those who approve of this judgment have already abused their own dignity and deserve neither respect nor deference from faithful Christians.  The problem is, it's illegal now in this world of false prelates and corrupted justice.


Read more at The Stumbling Block








... ]]>
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Being Forced to Honor Gay Marriage is One Thing. Being Uncivil is Quite Another! Gay Sexuality is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes; Does the Bishop of Cadiz, Spain Rule At the Whim of Some Tranny? ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Gay Sexuality is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes


Being Forced to Honor Gay Marriage is One Thing. Being Uncivil is Quite Another! 


Does the Bishop of Cadiz, Spain Rule At the Whim of Some Tranny?



... ]]>
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Catholic Answers: Is Hands-Off the Hierarchy the Honorable Thing? ]]>
Catholic Answers: Is Hands-Off the Hierarchy the Honorable Thing?

By Frank Walker

                                        No time for trouble


Is Catholic Answers an ideal resource? Its founder Karl Keating has taken a few hits in recent years over money and orthodoxy, and the site doesn't have same reputation it had.  Why then yesterday, other than in the spirit of gracious appreciation, did Keating publish a lengthy thank you to his early suporter, notorious Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony?

As my first book was going through the publishing process at Ignatius Press, the editors sought endorsements from prominent Catholics. Among those who were asked for a blurb was Roger Mahony, then Archbishop of Los Angeles, a see to which he was appointed in 1985. (Six years later he was named a cardinal.)

Three weeks after receiving the manuscript of my book, Mahony replied to Ignatius Press with a letter dated January 28, 1988:

“I am very enthusiastic about the new book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, and I hasten to offer my support and endorsement for this book.

“The book is a fine defense of the Catholic Faith in the context of Fundamentalism’s widely accepted claims against the Roman Catholic Church as a ‘cult,’ a ‘perverted form of Christianity,’ and ‘one of the cruelest institutions in the history of Western civilization.’ It is also a fine exposition of the false assumptions—historical and doctrinal—which underlie Fundamentalism’s claims against the Church.

“Furthermore, this new book takes the main claims of Fundamentalism—its own doctrines as well as its anti-Catholic positions—and refutes them with convincing argumentation. The book also discourses well on the scriptural basis of Catholic doctrine and offers the reader a means of responding to Fundamentalism’s anti-Catholicism.”

The publisher considered this a fine and generous endorsement, and so did I, but there was more, something not even asked for:

“Not only do I endorse this book with enthusiasm,” wrote Mahony, “but I am also pleased to grant both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, should you find that helpful.”

It was found helpful, and Mahony’s imprimatur was used, even though doing so constituted a bit of an irregularity. Under canon law, the imprimatur may be granted by the bishop of the diocese where the author lives (I reside in San Diego) or the bishop of the diocese where the publisher is located (Ignatius Press is in San Francisco).

I suppose it was a bit of a stretch to have the Archbishop of Los Angeles grant the imprimatur, but perhaps use was made of the fact that Los Angeles is the metropolitan diocese in Southern California—that is, that Los Angeles has a certain pre-eminence over the other dioceses of the area, even if it doesn’t quite have jurisdiction over them.

When I later had a chance to meet Mahony, he told me that, once he had received the manuscript, he read it straight through. He made other kind remarks about the book, and I was grateful that a prominent prelate thought the book to be useful.

That was not the only kindness Mahony displayed toward me. In September 1988, entirely at his own initiative and not in response to any request from me, he wrote to all of the priests of the archdiocese:

“I am very pleased to recommend to you an organization called Catholic Answers.

“The attached sheet indicates their background and activities, and I cannot recommend Mr. Karl Keating and his group more highly to you. They give an excellent presentation on the real meaning of Fundamentalism and the various sects which operate so widely here in Southern California.

“Several of our parishes have already had Mr. Keating speak and give workshops, and I would recommend that you consider him for your ongoing adult education effort.”

This endorsement was sent just eight months after I went into full-time apologetics work. Over the next few years my colleagues and I gave many parish seminars in the Los Angeles area. I’m sure we would not have had so many had it not been for Mahony’s encouragement.

In those early years, we drove up from San Diego in the late afternoon, after preparing our materials at the office (we took much literature, very little of which, at that time, was produced by us). Usually it was three of us and lots of boxes crammed into a van.

At the parish, we arranged our tables, gave the presentation, and then answered questions for as long as anyone was interested in sticking around. The seminar itself might conclude by 9:00, but often we found ourselves going one-on-one in the parking lot far past midnight. It wasn’t uncommon for us to get back to the office around 2:00 a.m.

At best, on the way up, we’d have a chance to stop for a snack, so by the time everything was over, we were famished. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much open in the wee hours other than Denny’s. We got to know its menu all too well.

Some weeks we had multiple engagements in the Los Angeles area. We’d drive up for parish A on Tuesday, parish B on Thursday, parish C on Friday, and parish D on Saturday. We put lots of miles on the van and lots of miles on ourselves. One week I kept a tally of how long I worked: 101 hours. After that, I no longer kept a record.

As tiring as those trips were, they laid the foundation for Catholic Answers’ public presentations. They allowed us to refine our talks, hone our arguments, and polish our styles. After a while, we discovered that we could handle whatever a questioner might ask. We didn’t flail, as we sometimes did when we first went on the road. It was a wonderful, educative experience, even if exhausting.

It would have been different if Roger Mahony hadn’t endorsed my book and endorsed my organization. In 1990 he celebrated Mass at the very first Catholic Answers national conference, which was held in Long Beach. After that, we more or less lost touch. He became a cardinal the next year, and not only did his duties change in important ways, but so too did his interests and, perhaps, some of his opinions.

Eventually he came to be considered the dean of the liberal wing of the Church in America. It may be that his views changed about the kind of work and the kind of approach that Catholic Answers has engaged in. I don’t know.

I do know that for the next twenty years, until his retirement, he was the frequent object of complaints by orthodox Catholics. For many, he was their bete noire. At the end, he was embroiled in the abuse scandal and had his administrative wings clipped by his successor. He ended in semi-disgrace.

In all those years I never wrote anything against him. There wasn’t much need to. Plenty of others were eager enough to take him to task; there was justification for that. There was no good reason for me to pile on. I had nothing to say that hadn’t been said by many others.

That was part of the reason I didn’t go after him, but the main reason was that I remember when someone does me an unexpected kindness—or, as in his case, more than one. I honor that because, I think, it’s the honorable thing to do.

So Cardinal Mahony was nice to Karl Keating and his organization, yet so often not nice otherwise.  Is it honorable to look the other way out of gratitude?  Isn't that the kind of thing that keeps trouble circulating among cronies?  Is it possible that the Cardinal was perhaps eager to get Keating in his debt early on, particularly since he was so frustrated by EWTN's Mother Angelica at the time?

St. Paul's admonition to bring correction privately first, then publicly if you have to is sound and honorable.  So was Mother's reply when the Cardinal was using all his weight to intimidate her into yielding control of her network, “I’ll blow the damn thing up before you get your hands on it.”



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ UK Herald: Some People Think They're More Catholic Than The Pope! ]]>
UK Herald: Some People Think They're More Catholic Than The Pope!

By Frank Walker

I don't know what in the world he's talking about but I will nevertheless submit my mind.

The UK Catholic Herald has a sad piece today telling faithful Catholics to stopp up their ears and close their eyes.  We aren't supposed to think, just obey the hierarchy, yes?  Makes sense.  They're all so nice.

But, huh, society being what it is, people will be people.

Authority is something Western society has a problem with. We like to make our own minds up, and even in Britain, once famed for its deference, everyone is their own expert.

In terms of religion, this is a very Protestant attitude. You go to the Bible, you find your proof text and you cite it, usually to support a position you have already taken up. This is not the Catholic attitude. We know what Scripture is because it was canonised by the Church, which also possesses the authority to expound it correctly, situating the texts within its traditions.

If your bishop is actually a Protestant, does that make you a Catholic to be a Protestant?  What if it's your pope?

The Magisterium has a teaching authority, which is expressed in many ways, including encyclicals. But, as reaction to the most recent papal encyclical, Laudato Si’, showed, even Catholics have a tendency to think that such teaching is something they can take or leave. Indeed, as with so much of the reaction in some quarters to Pope Francis’s comments, there was a tendency for commentators to assume they were more Catholic than the Pope – something which seems to happen a great deal with Francis.

Why?  Why does it happen so much with Francis?  Don't tell me.  It's because he's so wonderful and prophetic our hard hearts can't hear it.  We're just too challenged by his holy correction.  We don't feel guilty enough about money.  We're not afraid of the weather. We've been bribed by an oil company, and fooled by all the papers.

What do these writers suppose Heaven will make of their spin someday?

Popes are neither impeccable nor infallible in all they say, but it should be borne in mind that a papal encyclical is part of the ordinary magisterium, to which, as the Vatican II text Lumen Gentium reminds us, “religious submission of mind and will must be shown … in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence.” That means acknowledging the authority of the Magisterium, and, even when we disagree with some of what is said (acknowledging that on politics, economics and science, there is no question of infallibility applying), we should do so in a manner which shows respect.

Respect for a mountain of destructive lies?  Maybe that's part of your faith, Mr. Charmley.



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Gina McCarthy: Planner Reveals the FrancisChurch Paradigm ]]>
Gina McCarthy: Planner Reveals the FrancisChurch Paradigm

By Frank Walker

             Fully enabled to penetrate Catholic communities, now.

If these top Washington bureaucrats are so smart that they rule over us, inform the United Nations, and now drive the Vatican; why do they betray their careful schemes to the press? Is it carelessness?  Do they assume they are commiserating with someone who, of course, also thinks Catholicism is just a tremendous hoax played on the simple, or is it just their egos?

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said there is no need to continue debating the science behind climate change.

“I can remember a day when the weather report was in the middle of the domestic and international news and took about a minute and a half. It wasn’t the news. When you go on the news today the first thing you’ll hear about is the weather. So there is a dramatic difference in the way people perceive the ability of the climate to impact their lives because they’re feeling it today,” McCarthy said during an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Their endless climate propaganda is its own proof.  Like Jack Nicholson said in The Shining,  "It's okay. He saw it on the television."

“I think we need to make it very clear and not continue to debate the science. I think we need to get more people speaking about it than EPA, or NOAA or NASA. I mean, those people are great and looked at as being experts, not necessarily the best at making climate change science personal for people so they understand it,” she added.

Why does she speak of the organization she runs as 'those people?'  Is it so enormous she doesn't even feel like she's part of it?  Like a Nazi McCarthy shouts, "No more debates!"

Hmmm.  How can we make the global warming scam 'more personal?'  How can we get the stupid masses to understand?  If only we could put one of our boys at the top of the Church, we could get all those pope-worshiping Catholics to do what we say.

McCarthy, who met with the Pope Francis in January to discuss climate change, applauded his encyclical as “a big game changer.” She said it’s America’s “moral responsibility” to act on the issue.

These elitist anti-life overlords looooooove that encyclical.  Now it's moral!  The Catholic doctrine is ours in new FrancisChurch.  We will finally penetrate those impossible Christian 'communities.'

“He can reach to communities that we can’t. I think it’s very difficult to say the pope is saying it for political reasons. He’s, I think, able to make the case that this is really a factual occurrence that humans are impacting the climate, that’s it’s really important, that it’s most important for the poor, the low-income minority communities that can’t get out of the way of the climate impacts,” McCarthy said.

It's very difficult to say that the pope is a political agent?  Why would that be a benefit for McCarthy to celebrate?  How is it they can speak of the leader of the Catholic Church as if he is at once hawking their fiction-driven agenda and at the same time perceived as the voice of wisdom and truth?

It's because they think the Church is a lie already, so why not make it their lie.  It's worked before, and now that we've gotten hold of the mechanism, it will work again.  The problem is, similar to those Detroit atheists dancing around their new Satan statue, they don't know what they're playing with.

The reason Gina McCarthy and others like her reveal their strategy is because they are so thrilled about Pope Francis they can't contain their excitement.  Francis is really able to 'make the case,' she exclaims, that the poor can't get out of the way of the climate!  But is that a case or a sell?

It all seems impossible.  This new Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity because it's about stealing and hurting the poor, but their FrancisChurch will stick and spread even as it kills.  Why?  Because you can always find enough bitter malcontents around to pay to make trouble.  They did it to the Latin Church.  They can do it to the world.



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Gina McCarthy: Planner Reveals the FrancisChurch Paradigm; UK Herald: Some People Think They're More Catholic Than The Pope! Catholic Answers: Is Hands-Off the Hierarchy the Honorable Thing? ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Gina McCarthy: Planner Reveals the FrancisChurch Paradigm


UK Herald: Some People Think They're More Catholic Than The Pope!


Catholic Answers: Is Hands-Off the Hierarchy the Honorable Thing?



... ]]>
Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ American Catholic Lawyers Assoc. on <i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i> ]]>
Press Release on Obergefell v. Hodges


July 27, 2015, Fairfield, NJ - The American Catholic Lawyers Association announces its objection to the majority ruling in the case of  Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage.  Sodomy, as the Supreme Court itself observed in Bowers v. Hardwicke, before overruling itself a mere seventeen years later in Lawrence v. Texas, is immoral and perverse conduct that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to protect; and the Constitution is forbidden to transgress those aspects of the divine and natural law binding on all men and all nations. Nor was the Constitution ever intended to take away from the States the right to punish sodomy or to codify the truth of both divine and natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman. 

Moreover the Obergefell decision is invalid in that two of the Justices were required by the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, § 455, to recuse themselves because of “impartiality that might reasonably be questioned.” Both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg failed to recuse themselves despite having a public record of advocacy of “same-sex marriage,” with both having conducted “same-sex wedding” ceremonies.   

Finally, the American Catholic Lawyers Association protests in the strongest terms the actions of Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Because he was the deciding vote, God gave him, as a professing Catholic, the opportunity to uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead, he did the unthinkable and attempted to overturn that truth with false human reasoning. 

As a Catholic jurist, especially one protected by the life tenure that ensures judicial independence from popular sentiment, Justice Kennedy was bound to obey a law higher than his false notion of “liberty,” the law that God has inscribed in human nature.  Justice Kennedy failed in this sacred duty, violated the oath to God he took upon ascension to his high office, and thereby inflicted incalculable harm on society. 

In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003]

Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.


AMERICAN CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. is a federally tax-exempt organization dedicated, since 1991, to defending the rights of Catholics in civil and criminal courts throughout the nation, both state and federal, and in public discourse and debate. Donations to the work of the Association are tax-deductible in accordance with IRS Code § 501(c)(3).

CONTACT PERSON: John Obriski, Administrative Assistant, 973.244.9895;




... ]]>
Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ New Our Savior Spiritual Director an Episcopalian Massage Therapist? ]]>
New York's Our Savior: Renewing Souls at Wreckovated Churches

By Frank Walker

'catholic' spiritual direction at wreckovated New York's Church of Our Savior?


How did New York's Church of Our Savior go so deeply in debt in just one brief year?  One must assume that the ongoing wreckovations, which are 'sensitive' to the past yet prepared for future technologies, cost money.  There's also that tremendous collapse in collections from the Park Avenue jewel.  Still, there are many other ways for a Manhattan parish to waste Catholic contributions in the new FrancisChurch.  For example, you can hire someone to 'renew' lay ministries and apply deep-tissue spiritual direction at the same time.

Kathleen T. Ullmann, Class of 2013, has been called by the Church of Our Savior, NYC, as their first pastoral associate for lay ecclesial ministries.

The entire Archdiocese of New York is now involved in a strategic planning process called Making All Things New to ensure that the pastoral care of parishioners is not sacrificed or short-changed as the Archdiocese engages in the merging of parishes. Ullmann will be tasked with accomplishing the renewal of lay ministries in the three parishes of Church of Our Savior, Church of St. Stephen and Our Lady of the Scapular, and Chapel of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

That's handy.  While they're busy chewing up three parishes and selling them off as priceless real-estate, scattering the flock and reshuffling them far from home, they're also actually 'renewing' the lay ministries - and since it's too much for the remainder priests and faithful volunteers, they bring in an expert.

Before receiving her MA in Theology as well as a certificate in Spiritual Direction from General, Ullmann received a Master’s Degree as an early childhood special educator and is a licensed massage therapist.  She has completed three years of CPE in various hospital settings in NYC and will soon begin another  year of CPE at VA Medical Center.

CPE is an 'interfaith' spiritual direction license, The General is an Episcopal Church seminary, and a massage therapist is paid to give massages.

There's more to a wreckovation than just 'renewing' churches and the Mass.




... ]]>
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Vicar Of Christ To Anti-Catholic Pro-Abort Mayors: You Are The "Conscience Of Humanity!" ]]>
The Mad Hatter's Tea Party: Moonbeam and Mayors Descend on the Vatican

By Elizabeth Yore

Vatican Abp. Sanchez Sorondo draws exclusively leftist mayors, politicians from around the world to save the planet, end slavery.


Down another rabbit hole we tumble.

California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and 8 Democratic U.S. Mayors descend on the Vatican today to worship at the altar of the new religion of environmentalism. The Vatican’s latest selection of eco experts continues to get ‘curiouser and curiouser’. In Vatican Eco-wonderland, everything is turned upside down; left is right, wrong is right, moral is ecological. Despite Pope Francis’ assertion in Laudato Si that he is open to dialogue from all sides, no Republican mayors or governors were invited to the eco convention.

Behind each door is a more radical, more anti Catholic politician invited by the Vatican to elicit support for its eco edict. The DRINK ME Potion of environmentalism is feasted on by Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) as it sets the table for the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The leftist delegation of mayoral tree huggers led by the Governor Moonbeam, are featured as honored guests at the Vatican climate change pep rally. Jerry ‘Solar Panel’ Brown genuflects at the global warming altar:

“Religion deals with the fundamentals. When you deal with fundamentals of what makes the atmosphere and the weather, and whether that permanently or radically changes, that’s very similar to a fundamental principle of right and wrong.”

The newly christened ‘religion of environmentalism’ chanted by Governor Brown sets the stage to build momentum for the upcoming U.S. Papal visit, the UN Sustainable Development Summit, and the Paris Climate Treaty. Governor Brown anoints the new moral and religious force of the eco movement:

“Pope Francis is bringing to climate change a moral and theological dimension that adds to the market and political calculations.”

Yes, the global warming movement is immensely warmed by the arrival and presence of its long missing energy source, a moral voice, now supplied by Pope Francis. Yet, as the author and anthropologist, Michael Crichton cautioned about the dangers of deifying the climate change movement:

“{S}cience offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.”

These democratic pols share the papal world view of climate change and UN sustainable development. Curiously though, these Vatican hand picked and personally invited politicians are bitter enemies of the moral teaching of the Church, who actively and aggressively promote political policies and laws in direct contravention of the tenets of the Catholic Church.

Take for example, Jerry “ex seminarian” Brown. Brown supports legalized abortion and same sex marriage. In 2013, Brown signed into law one of the most radical abortion laws in the country which gave California women more access to abortion, by allowing nurse practitioners and certain other non-physicians to perform the procedure during the first trimester of pregnancy. Brown also opposed a bill banning same sex marriage.

Perchance, did Archbishop Gomez of LA place a call to the Vatican and ask why are you welcoming to the Vatican, a baptized catholic who as a politician has promoted abortion and same sex marriage in contravention of the faith and morals of the Catholic Church? This might be a sign of confusion and contradiction to faithful Catholics?

How about Ed Lee, democratic mayor of San Francisco, environmentalist and abortion proponent? Did the Vatican check in with Archbishop Cordileone about the Ed Lee invitation?

What about democratic Mayors Hodges (Minneapolis), Hales, (Portland), Liccardo (San Jose), Landrieu (New Orleans), all invited guests of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy on Social Sciences who all hold pro abortion, pro LGBT views in contravention of Catholic teaching.

Are Catholics free to ignore and condone the anti-Catholic stances of these politicians? Are the mayors’ environmental beliefs more important to the Vatican than their position on abortion or same sex marriage? What are Catholics to believe when, in the words of Vatican Bishop Sorondo, “we can invite whomever we want.” Is that because the Pontifical Academy of Social Science has become a radical forum to elevate, not the tenets of the Catholic faith, but the new religion of environmentalism?

Surely the papal invitation to Mayor Marty Walsh of Boston must have raised the ire of Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, one of the 8 Cardinals in Pope Francis’ Cabinet. Was Cardinal O’Malley distressed by the papal invitation to Boston’s most prominent Catholic politician who is virulently pro abortion and refused to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade because of the Church’s LGBT stance? Certainly, Pope Francis would respond to a phone call from Cardinal O’Malley about the Archdiocese’s political and moral adversary.

Was the prominent and popular Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York displeased by the invitation to Mayor Bill de Blasio to speak at the Vatican. Cardinal Dolan is no shrinking violet and would certainly express his displeasure at the invite to a radical pro abortion, pro LGBT supporter. In fact, de Blasio is a longtime supporter of Nicaragua’s Marxist Sandinistas and de Blasio even honeymooned in Cuba, in violation of the U.S. travel ban. Cuba! No wonder, de Blasio was asked to speak at the conference.

De Blasio supports same sex marriage and even officiated at a same sex marriage. He, too, like Mayor Marty Walsh refused to walk in the St. Pat’s parade in protest of the Church’s stance. Not to worry, de Blasio has the political credentials that the Vatican needs in its environmental campaign.

These are the men that Pope Francis described during the conference as “the conscience of humanity”?

Last week, Catholics learned that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was not offended by a hammer and sickle crucifix. This week the Pope hosts the early Democratic convention featuring the most radical anti-Catholic leftists in American politics. Crichton saw the danger of mixing environmentalism with religion, a theology dominating the Vatican during the Francis papacy:

“We are energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment.”

This week the Vatican is hosting its 7th Sustainable Development Conference of the Francis papacy by inviting 60 leftist politicians from around the world. Bishop Sorondo, who is hosting the event, when asked whether the “exclusive presence of mayors of the left of center is not a sign of partiality.” Sorondo heatedly responded that “the invitation is open to everyone.”

In the words of Lewis Carroll’s Alice, “I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.”



Elizabeth Yore is an international child rights lawyer who has handled human trafficking cases throughout her legal career. She was a member of the Heartland Institute Delegation that travelled to Rome to urge the Vatican to avoid the anti life UN Sustainable Development agenda. She served as Special Counsel at Harpo, Inc. In that position, she acted as Oprah Winfrey’s Child Advocate in South Africa at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls. Elizabeth was General Counsel at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and General Counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.




... ]]>
Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Fr. Rutler on On Pessimism, Optimism, and Hope ]]>
On Pessimism, Optimism, and Hope

By Fr. George W. Rutler

The pessimist and the optimist are much alike. Though the maxim has the pessimist seeing a glass half-empty and the optimist seeing it half-full, what they share is the confinement of their perspectives to the glass and what is in it. I’d rather be an optimist, because he tends to be more valiant. King Saul with his spear was a pessimist who though that Goliath was too big to be killed, and David with his slingshot was an optimist who thought that the giant was too big to miss. But the attitudes of both were psychological. The morose personality sees threat, and the buoyant personality sees opportunity, but reality for both is only perception. It has been observed that the pessimist is an unhappy idiot and the optimist a happy idiot, for the self and the self’s humor are the measure of all things.  

There is agreement among both kinds of personalities that the world is going to end. Grimly or happily, they can cite physicists who expect that our own planet will be finished by the year 500,000,000,000 AD. But it will be too hot to sustain human life within a mere one billion years. These days, many seem to be pessimists who think that the world will end faster than expected, at least in terms of livable conditions affected by climate change. Some take this as a new Gospel, and skeptics are treated as heretics facing an opprobrium as harsh as it is capricious and as capricious as it is vicious. The argument is declared settled, even though no true science is ever settled.   

No less a brain than that of Isaac Newton was confident that the world would end in 2060 AD. The jury is still out on that. Now some Russian scientists complicate things by predicting that a 60% drop in solar activity will cause a mini-ice age from 2030 to 2040, similar to the freeze from 1645 to 1715. We do know that Paul Ehrlich’s book, The Population Bomb, predicted in 1968 that long before now 4 billion people would have starved to death, including 65 million in the United States. He continues to lecture to well-fed students at Stanford University.   

Grigori Rasputin contaminated Russia with his pessimism, predicting that the world would end on August 23, 2013. That only happened in places like Detroit.  He was the opposite of P.G. Wodehouse’s blithe Madeline Bassett who thought that “the stars are God’s daisy chain,” and “every time a fairy blows its wee nose a baby is born.”   

The only settled science is that of the soul. It is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. It is the realism of Christ who is the Eternal Logos, reason itself. Against pessimism and optimism it posits the virtue of hope. By hope, one trusts God will grant eternal life and the means to attain it if one cooperates with the divine will, while recognizing the difficulties that lie in the path toward that blissful eternity. Hope has no patience for its dark enemy pessimism, nor for its gossamer imitation optimism. 

... ]]>
Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ UN's Jeffrey Sachs: Lord of the FrancisGospel? Conservative is a Slur in Faithless FrancisVatican; Paul VI Said the UN was the Mandatory Path, and He Was No Right-Winger ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

UN's Jeffrey Sachs: Lord of the FrancisGospel?


Conservative is a Slur in Faithless FrancisVatican


Paul VI Said the UN was the Mandatory Path, and He Was No Right-Winger






... ]]>
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Paul VI Said the UN was the Mandatory Path, and He Was No Right-Winger ]]>
Paul VI Said the UN was the Mandatory Path, and He Was No Right-Winger

By Frank Walker

           Calm down. The Holy See says the UN is quite the opposite.

Vatican Global Warming Archbishop and UN point man, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, never has a good answer to a question:

The United Nations is not “the devil,” so a papal think tank is free to collaborate with the international body as well as people of any political persuasion, said Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

The church will continue to collaborate with the United Nations on any joint project that “does not go against the doctrine of the church,” he said at a news conference July 15.

The Vatican academy is sponsoring a one-day symposium July 22 with the United Nations’ global initiative, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, headed by U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs.

The unjust and oppressive schemes going on in the Vatican certainly do go against the doctrine of the Church, which is exactly why it's entirely appropriate that it collaborates with the UN.  Of course the UN is not 'the Devil' but, much like Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo, it does make the Devil very pleased by doing all his dirty business.  He's a huge fan.

“The United Nations is not the devil. Rather, quite the opposite,” he said.

If the United Nations is completely opposed to the devil it must be the Church, yes? - or even God himself!

Is the Vatican so infested there's not a saved soul in it?

Blessed Pope Paul VI, who was the first pope to visit the United Nations, told the general assembly in 1965 that the world organization represented the mandatory path of modern civilization and world peace, Bishop Sanchez said. Successive popes showed the same kind of support with their own visits to the U.N., too, he said.

Speaking to the UN and doing its cruel job are two different things.  Citing the only Pope with the nerve to suppress the Mass of the Apostles and replace it with one he made up, and who flooded the hierarchy with faithless homosexuals, is at the least unconvincing.  I know Pope Francis made him a blessed so you're right, there's that.

“Therefore, I don’t see how there can be any problem” with collaborating with the United Nations, especially as the academy has worked with many other world organizations and leaders, he said.

That's a good point.  The line of thugs and dictators trolling through the Vatican lately is quite long.  None of them are the devil either.

“To see the devil in the United Nations, which some on the right tend to do, is not the position of the Holy See,” he said.

Take that 'position of the Holy See' line to St. Peter at the gates.  That oughta fly.


Read more at The Stumbling Block







... ]]>
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Conservative is a Slur in Faithless FrancisVatican ]]>
Conservative is a Slur in Faithless FrancisVatican

By Frank Walker

                          This way to UN Heaven for the believer


The Eponymous Flower has the inside story on the latest Sanchez Sorondo UN Global Warming atrocity in Rome.

(Rome) on the 21st and 22nd of July, mayors from around the world meet at the Vatican to discuss the global climate and modern slavery. What sounds so politically correct, should be through and through. Initiator of the Mayor Meeting is the Argentine, Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, Curial Archbishop, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . He was the organizer behind the eco-Encyclical Laudato Si who besides creating the contacts next to the dead letter, especially at the United Nations and the "high politics".

I must be ignorant but I fail to grasp this 'modern slavery' issue.  People throw out the words, 'slavery' or 'human trafficking,' and no further explanation is really given.  Statistics cite hundreds of thousands of slaves and usually associate them with that other fungible word, 'refugees.'

Are we talking about Saudi housekeepers, illegal aliens, prostitutes, or the women of ISIS?  If so, then why don't they just use the specific reference so we can know whom they're talking about?  Are there slaves in the USA? If so then where are they?  Do they go to school? Do they work?  Are they in chains and at gunpoint or enslaved by drugs and harsh words?  Is it their poverty that keeps them where they are, because I would move that into Pope Francis's poverty column then.

Are the two thousand people parked outside the telemarketing mill downtown slaves. If not, then what are they?

I wonder if generally, except for criminal gangs and many women in the Muslim world, these 'slaves' just don't exist.  Sure, there are people on the very low end of life who are poor or immigrant and generally under the control of others all over the world.  But even if there were an actual worldwide slave problem it would have nothing to do with a catastrophically warming planet.  On the other hand if the slave problem was for the most part invented, then in that case they would have everything in common.

It seems to be very important these days at the UN, and now in the halls of what was once the Catholic Church, that there be non-stop conferencing and binding agreements made to solve problems that don't really exist.  If the central issue being fixed isn't real, then you can hurl useless ineffective 'solutions' at it all day and get away with it.  It's the perfect excuse for government work.

In the new one-world UN faux-Christendom there's no more need for the Veterans Administration or the Departments of Transportation and Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, because those entities rely upon something real.  Now, with replacement-Pope Francis and Abp. Sanchez Sorondo's help, you can rule the world by pretending to solve problems that are completely fictional.

He organized ahead of the encyclical, the concept of an international workshop of "climate change and sustainable development" in the Vatican. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will give the opening speech. The keynote speaker will be his right hand, the UNSDNS Director Jeffrey Sachs (UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network). Thus, not only will the representatives who believe in  manmade global warming will gather in the Vatican, but also the neo-Malthusians.  Not only that, but climate skeptics were systematically removed from the registration list. The Vatican has been (see the promoters of a guided, one-sided meeting in accordance with the UN World Warming thesis  Climate skeptics Excluded From  Vatican Meeting - Other Opinions Undesirable ).

60 Mayors from Around the World Meeting in the Vatican - are "Exclusively" of the Left

The end of May  Sanchez Sorondo gave an inglorious interview in which he meant to identify the causes for the global children's killings by abortion and climate change (see Abortion and Climate Change: In the Vatican someone was persuaded of great nonsense ). The Curial Archbishop has since been an architect of the approach of the Catholic Church to the UN agenda. It's an initiative  that he can develop only with the necessary backing from the highest level.

Sanchez Sorondo's next step will be to bring 60 mayors from around the world to the Vatican  next week. The cross-section is impressive, and the political positioning of the mayors rather "colorful". Coming will be  the leftist Catholic Mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino; the communist mayor of Milan, Giuliano Pisapia; the left-liberal mayor of Naples, Luigi De Magistris; the left-wing mayor of Madrid, Manuela Carmena (from the beginning of her judicial career a member of the Communist Party of Spain, then without a party, the 2015 top candidate of an electoral alliance between the Socialists and the radical left movement,  Podemos); the feminist, Socialist Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris.

Not only are true scientists excluded from presenting to the Academy of Sciences but only Democrats, or in Europe communists, were invited to this mayors conference.  There are absolutely no faithful Christians in any of these Vatican meetings because, despite the fact Pope Francis says he knows many who are good people, there is no such thing as a righteous communist and if you're going to bind the world to treaties based completely upon lies, you can't expect much help from people of character.

The next time Pope Francis rails against 'ideology' we must remember, not only that he is of course a notorious ideologue himself, but that his henchman Abp. Sanchez Sorondo can't even find the least bit of truth or credibility in something that isn't leftist:

The United Nations is not the devil, but the opposite," said Sanchez Sorondo to a journalist's question, whether it was not strange that the Vatican was harboring a UN event. "The symposium is not organized by the UN, but by the Pontifical Academies and the UN," said the Archbishop. He meant the two academies, whose chancellor he is. Already Paul VI. has visited the United Nations in New York goes the justification of the Pope's confidant. "In September, Pope Francis will visit them. I do not see where there should be a problem. In the United Nations to recognize the devil, is position typical of   the right, that is not the position of the Holy See. The united left gathered in the Vatican  would all be  happy with this statement.

Oh sure, right-wingers think the UN is bad.  That in and of itself is enough to silence a critique for the archbishop, the White House, and the editors of the New York Times.  This phony priest would pay the same compliment to every tenet of the Faith if he had to.

On the question of other journalists, whether the "exclusive presence of mayors of the left of   center is not a sign of partiality," Sanchez Sorondo answered mockingly: "The invitation is open to everyone, if you bring us another mayor, we are grateful. We have no reservations."  The one-sided color preference of the loaded mayor guest list suggests the opposite. It should rather have been a selective contact  including invitation.

Complain to Sorondo once, you get insulted.  Complain twice, you get a lie.  This is FrancisChurch.



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ UN's Jeffrey Sachs: Lord of the FrancisGospel? ]]>
UN's Jeffrey Sachs: Lord of the FrancisGospel?

By Frank Walker

                     The Catholic Church's New Governing Board

At the National Post Fr. Raymond J. d' Souza tracks the evolution and power of worldwide global warming apostle and now Vatican guide, UN's Jeffrey Sachs.

Jeffrey Sachs, it is true, is just one man. But the UN’s chief development man is near-ubiquitous, laying out the future of the global economy. If you want to know what the conferenciers of global summitry discuss, read Sachs.

Here in Poland, his name is most associated with the “shock therapy” of early 1990s. After the defeat of communism and return to democratic politics, Poland had to decide how to dismantle the state-controlled economic policies that had kept Poland poor for four decades. Sachs was the principal international advisor advocating a rapid removal of price regulations and state subsidies. There would be sharp short term pain for, it was hoped, economic freedom, stability and growth in a short few years.

Poland opted for shock therapy and within three years the economy was growing, hyperinflation had been killed and the Polish entrepreneurial class, everywhere evident today, had emerged. Compared to more sluggish transitions elsewhere in the former Soviet empire, Polish shock therapy was judged a success.

The Sachs of the 1990s, flitting hither and yon to advocate rapid adoption of free-market policies was considered a man of the right. Yet for 20 years now he has been flitting ever-farther afield in the service of poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Special advisor to the UN for the millennium development goals, he is now leading the UN charge toward a global climate change treaty. In terms of impact on global policy priorities, there are as few as influential as Jeffrey Sachs.

"Leading the UN charge toward a global climate change treaty."

On balance, his poverty work has been rooted in confidence that human capital — unleashing the creative productivity of the poor through education, access to capital and economic freedom — is the foundation for economic growth. That’s to his credit, even if he also keeps faith with the global poverty and aid industry that has long believed that the quickest way to reduce poverty is to get rid of poor people, whether by contraception and sterilization campaigns, eugenics, expanded abortion licences and, in the case of China, systematic human rights violations in enforcing the one-child policy.

Sachs bears watching, and I assign his work in my own economics course, for he is always leading the trends. In the Nineties it was post-communist transition. In the Aughts it was poverty. Now it is global warming and sustainable development. Last week, he was in Quito for the “International Conference on Sustainable Development.” I first thought he might be on hand to greet Pope Francis, but it turned out he left Quito before the pope arrived. Sachs does not need to ambush the Holy Father abroad. Francis invited him to the Vatican in April to headline the Church’s own seminar on climate change.

Nevertheless, Sachs was in tiny Ecuador while Francis was also there.  Now he's back in the Vatican next week.

It’s getting hard to keep up with all the speeches, seminars and summits. While the “International Conference on Sustainable Development” in Ecuador was wrapping up, there was a contemporaneous “World Summit on Climate and Territories” in Lyon, both of which preceded last week’s “Climate Summit of the Americas” in Toronto. All of which is gearing up for the climate change summit in Paris this December.

“Kathleen Wynne has this week been hosting a climate summit with California’s governor Jerry Brown and Al Gore, both high cardinals in the zealous Church of Global Warming (Mr. Gore used to be Pope of that church, but the real Pope is now its Pope too), bringing a wonderful touch of pure Americana into Ontario politics,” wrote Rex Murphy on Saturday in our pages.

The Pope is now the Pope of Global Warming.  No more need for Al.

But it is not just America, nor just Ontario. It is almost everywhere, like Sachs himself. China recently moved toward a climate alliance with the United States, and the G7 declared that in about a hundred years they would no longer use fossil fuels. Indeed, one of the few places where climate enthusiasm is muted is the former Soviet empire; memories here of state-directed economic goals are relatively fresh and not favourable.

Though continuously associated with lawless communism, Putin's Russia is one of the few places in the modern world that seems to reject it today.  They embrace Christianity without trying to crush or neuter it.

Father has the trends down.  As Sachs moved from Right to Left so did the world around him.

Sachs’ views prevailed in Poland 25 years ago. With the next round of the UN “sustainable development goals” — the updating of the millennium development goals — and the Paris summit, Sachs is prevailing the world over.

I rather doubt that Pope Francis would think it a step up to go from being the successor of St. Peter to the successor of Al Gore, but much of the world sure thinks it fabulous. After all, St. Peter never got the Nobel Peace Prize. And today while few of the global policy elite read the epistles of Peter, many fervently follow the gospel of Sachs.

Seeing Jeffrey Sachs so active and embraced in the Vatican today, one gets the sense that there is a plan afoot that has nothing to do with the Church's mission or the papal office, yet demands the full compliance and surrender of both.


Read more at The Stumbling Block







... ]]>
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The Vatican's Potemkin Village ]]>
The Vatican's Potemkin Village

By Elizabeth Yore


“Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive”

                                                                      ~Sir Walter Scott


In late 18th century Russia, Catherine the Great and Prince Grigory Potemkin, her military advisor took a trip through Crimea. In order to dazzle Catherine with his military prowess, Potemkin arranged for fake villages to be built along the route of their trip. The villages were staged to convince and persuade Catherine of his genius. Hence, Potemkin villages were born in the historical annals to signify efforts to create a false impression by using an elaborate hoax.

The Vatican is trying to erect its own Potemkin Village with the false and absurd argument that human trafficking and global warming are connected. Next week’s upcoming Vatican conference is entitled, “Modern Slavery and Climate Change: the Commitment of the Cities.” The Vatican’s spokesman reiterated this spurious connection. “These issues are intertwined: The objectification of people, and the objectification of the planet,” said the media consultant for the Vatican eco conference. Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, the Chancellor Pontifical Academy also chimed in that, “There is a clear link between the two human-induced emergencies of the climate crisis and the social crisis.”

This is not the first time that the Vatican floated this absurd causal connection between trafficking and global warming. During the April 28th Vatican Environmental Summit, Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, promoted this bizarre narrative by describing the goal of the conference:

“The desired outcome is a joint statement on the moral and religious imperative of sustainable development, highlighting the intrinsic connection between respect for the environment and respect for people--especially the poor, the excluded, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, children and future generations.”

The Vatican’s lame refrain reminds one of the famous expression, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

The Vatican declaration of an intrinsic connection, a nexus between climate change and human trafficking is on its face, ludicrous, deceptive, and infinitely damaging to the plight of victims of human trafficking around the world. This fallacious statement links a real human crisis of modern slavery with a manufactured one of climate change.

Does the Vatican expect us to believe that human traffickers decide to abduct and sell a vulnerable woman or child based on global warming? Can you picture ISIS terrorists, checking the temperature before heading out to a Christian Iraqi village to rape and kidnap its women and children? Or perhaps the Vatican believes that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State orders mass kidnappings because a thunderstorm is rolling into western Iraq. Does Boko Haram decide to terrorize and sell into slavery innocent Christian Nigerian schoolgirls because of a drought, or perhaps a flood? The absurdity of the Vatican’s false correlation reveals   desperation to bolster its weak and scientifically challenged global warming initiative.

Moreover, anyone who has worked a human trafficking case realizes that this assertion of a link between human trafficking and climate change is preposterous and an insult to victims. The only temperature affecting the crime of human trafficking resides in the cold blooded, vicious and sociopathic heart of the trafficker. For the Vatican to obscure the motives and conditions that foster modern slavery is very troubling.

St. John Paul the Great powerfully articulated the intrinsic nature of modern slavery in 2002 at the International Conference entitled, 21st Century-The Human Rights Dimension to Trafficking in Human Beings, St. John Paul urged:

“The sexual exploitation of women and children...must be recognized as an intrinsic violation of human dignity and rights.”

Based on my experience with human trafficking victims, St. John Paul II uniquely understood that the cause of this crime is a malevolent heart, riddled by evil and sin. Human trafficking thrives in both developed and undeveloped countries, in cold and hot weather. Its victims and perpetrators span the economic spectrum. The climate, whether hot or cold, raining or parched, has absolutely nothing to do with man’s inhumanity to man. Sin, especially this mortal sin, feeds and drives this unimaginable horror.

Yet, the Vatican continues to perpetuate this absurd myth. Cardinal Peter Turkson, Head of the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, spoke about the Encyclical, Laudato Si to UNICEF on June 30, 2015. His remarks about the causes of migration are shockingly superficial and inane in light of the ongoing massive forced migration of persecuted Christians throughout the Middle East:

“So I sense the pain in the Pope’s word when he laments the consequences for children when families are forced to migrate after local animals and plants disappear due to changes in climate.”

There are nearly one million Syrian refugees who fled war torn violence now living in refugee camps in Jordan. Over 1.7 million Iraqis, many of them Christians, have been forced to flee their homes because of a violent war. There is a massive global humanitarian crisis impacting persecuted Christians and the Vatican is worried that families are fleeing their homes because flora and fauna are disappearing because of climate change?

The crime of human trafficking is growing for a multitude of reasons, open borders, the ease of jet travel and transportation, the instantaneous Internet connection to conduct this criminal enterprise, and yes, abortion and its heinous and predictable mutation, sex selection abortion. Nature abhors a vacuum and with a void of 100 million missing Asian girls, as a result of gendercide, evil rushes in to fill the vacuum. Abortion is fueling the human trafficking trade. Contrary to the Vatican’s assertion, reducing carbon dioxide levels will have no effect on human trafficking. To suggest otherwise, reveals a desperate narrative to promote a radical climate agenda in search of validation.

In order to promote and vindicate its scientifically disputed global warming scheme, the Vatican’s climate movement needs a hot button issue to justify its unjustifiable stance. Human Trafficking provides that compelling narrative. The Vatican would be wise to follow the words of Catherine the Great, who saw the foolishness of the Potemkin Village. “I have listened with the greatest pleasure to all the inspirations of your brilliant mind. But all your grand principles, which I understand very well, would do splendidly in books and very badly in practice.”



Elizabeth Yore is an international child rights lawyer who has handled human trafficking cases throughout her legal career. She served as Special Counsel at Harpo, Inc. In that position, she acted as Oprah Winfrey’s Child Advocate in South Africa at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls. Elizabeth was General Counsel at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and General Counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.




... ]]>
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ What Does Archbishop Cupich Know About Catechesis Anyway? ]]>
What Does Archbishop Cupich Know About Catechesis Anyway?

By Frank Walker

        An opportunity for Catholic students to dialogue about truth

Dominic Lynch at phoned new Chicago FrancisBishop Blase Cupich for an interview.  Since we have so many new martyrs, saints, and venerables in FrancisChurch who seem to elude requirements for demonstrating heroic virtue, saintly character, or miracles, I think we might be looking here at some future Patron Saint of Excuses.

In a phone conversation, Cupich shared thoughts about Catholic identity on campuses, what he would contribute to this fall’s gathering at the Vatican on the family, and whether he is a Chicago Cubs or Chicago White Sox fan.

How can Catholic universities in America regain sight of their institutional identities?

It’s very important to keep in mind that there’s always a tension in making sure that the Catholic ethos and inspiration that gave rise to the university continues to be handed on from one generation to another. At the same time, it’s also important to realize that universities are laboratories where people do grow. They need the space to make sure that they incrementally understand the faith. Sometimes that means it’s not all at once — there has to be a certain pedagogy to it.

In FrancisChurch every Catholic is a scientist and every target is a 'laboratory.'  Freedom to sin is 'space' and sinning is 'growing.'  Spiraling into a pit of vice is 'incrementally understanding the faith' according to some 'pedagogy!'

We also know that a good number of students in our Catholic universities are not Catholic. For instance, various theology classes can’t turn into catechetical institutes. There has to be some awareness of teaching people how to think theologically. That tension is always going to be there in an institution of higher learning.

Teaching theology without catechesis?  Thinking 'theologically' without learning theology?  Embrace the 'tension' of cognitive dissonance, says Cupich.  In other words, be absurd.  It's just higher learning, see.

But it sure sounds lower.

Loyola University Chicago recently hosted transgender activist Laverne Cox. How should a Catholic university navigate thorny concerns like that?

I don’t know the context of the person coming there, so I can’t really comment on that particular issue. I do know there are issues of concern to students, and if you can use a controlled environment by which there can be honest and open dialogue so people do come to an awareness of what the truth is, that’s of value. It’s always of value for people to take different steps towards the truth — even in terms of a point-counterpoint. That’s a legitimate way for a university to educate people, in general.

I don't know too much about that event but clinically speaking, if the environment is controlled by some creepy professor, then you can have a Petri dish of dialogue.

I thought speakers came to teach not learn.  Giving voice to the depraved and perverted allows the guest speaker a chance to learn the truth from who - the odd student foolish or unfortunate enough to be taking the class, but who's bold, righteous, and honest enough to speak out and receive a C or an F for his tepid critique?

The truth moves one way in a situation like that - out the door.

In FrancisChurch slippery bishops and gay spectacles get mountains of funding while Catholic truth can only pay, protest, and fail.

From here Abp. Cupich skips right over the Synod without saying anything frightening, then moves toward the family in general.  We have to do better accompanying them as they pass on the faith!

When the Synod on the Family convenes again this fall, Communion for the divorced and remarried is an issue to be discussed. Where do you align on that issue?

I don’t think that’s a big issue. The real issue today for families and marriage within the church is: How can the family continue to be the place where the Gospel is passed on? That seems to be where the real crisis is. Some are concerned about a decline in Mass attendance, and that is troublesome. However, I believe we’ve lost a sense in the church that the family is where the Gospel is communicated.

We have to help our families see that if the faith is going to continue, it’s going to have to be handed on within the context of the family. As for the other issues of who can go to Communion and all the rest of it, those are not unimportant, but they’re not the central issues. The Synod should not concern itself with those kinds of technical questions.

If you were to make a specific contribution to the Synod, what would it be?

I’ve been a priest now for 40 years and I think that marriage preparation is too focused on the relationship between the couple. We don’t do a very good job in the church of helping people who get married to see the role they have in bringing children into the world and passing on the faith. We don’t accompany them there.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked us to “accompany” people. We have to put together marriage preparation programs that factor into the equation of how we are asking them to create a family, a place where the faith is passed on. We don’t talk about that at all to married couples.

How important is that kind of training for Catholics at an early age?

Well, that kind of catechesis is going to be effective not only if it is done well in the classroom, but also if it is supported at home. Too many people believe that they don’t have responsibility for passing on the faith. They think that they can take a child to religious education, go off and pick up the laundry and come back and pick-up a Catholic. We’re not serving families well by not challenging parents to take on the catechesis with us. It starts with building a whole new generation of married couples who see the importance of their part in passing on the faith.

What are your plans to stem the tide of Catholics leaving the church?

It’s not just the Catholic church that is losing regular church attendance. It’s the case for all of the mainstream, mainline religions. The real issue here is there is a redefinition of the human person that the culture wants to promote: that the human person lives in isolation, who is autonomous, who is the author of their own life, and who wants to be left alone. That’s opposed to the church’s understanding that the human person is relational, who lives in community with others and whose life is defined in terms of their relationship with others.

That is scary to some people because communities make expectations of us. We live in a culture today that has a very strong market-driven understanding of human life that wants to divide us. It’s easier to sell products to individuals rather than to communities.

We need to start with this question: How do you see your life? Is it lived in isolation or do you see the value of relationships where we make demands on each other in faith?

Except for the blame he puts on 'the evil market,' none of this sounds too bad to me.  That's the problem.

Well there is that bit about too much autonomy and people thinking they are the authors of their own lives.  That does sound a touch invasive. I guess it's possible FrancisBishop Cupich might want to author my life a little, and grab what remains of my freedom for the sake of my family's faith.  Is their faith yet another excuse?

Didn't he just tell us that transgender college speeches were dialogue and that sinning was space for incremental growth?  Why should I trade my freedom and family so Archbishop Cupich can pass on some of that FrancisFaith?

I am the author of the life God gave me, and I don't hate my autonomy - especially now that FrancisChurch seems to want it so badly.



Read more at The Stumbling Block








... ]]>
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ When Dissidents Write Encyclicals They Fill Them With Heresy ]]>
When Dissidents Write Encyclicals They Fill Them With Heresy

By Frank Walker

                              Crazed or just startled by the light?

After seeing how the Catholic media stepped over itself to hide the Pope's welcome for a communist crucifix, and knowing that they have also done their best to cover the lies and heresy in the Laudato Si' encyclical, why should it be surprising that its sinister contributors keep popping up?

Rorate Caeli reports:

The New Yorker published last week a long opinion piece (A Radical Vatican?) by Naomi Klein, a radical eco-feminist (and abortion supporter who has publicly disparaged pro-lifers) who was specifically invited by the Vatican to be one of the four speakers at a major press conference held on July 1 in the Aula Giovanni Paolo II, organized by the Holy See Press Office and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The press conference's goal was to introduce the international conference “People and Planet First: the Imperative to Change Course” held in the Augustinianum on July 2-3. The conference was co-hosted by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace along with CIDSE, an international alliance of 17 Catholic Development Organisations; predictably it focused to a great extent on Laudato Si. Klein also served as a panelist during the conference at the Augustinianum.

"A Radical Vatican?" is noteworthy not only as an example of how secular figures that the Vatican itself considers as allies are treating the encyclical as an epochal break from Catholic tradition, but also for its passages about the theological intentions behind the encyclical. (See below; emphases ours.) Here we find Naomi Klein quoting Fr. Seán McDonagh, who is part of the "administrative team" of the ultra-liberal and theologically dissident "Association of Catholic Priests" (ACP) in Ireland -- and was involved in drafting the encyclical. McDonagh's role in drafting Laudato Si is trumpeted not just by the ACP's website (which calls him "one of the chief advisors to the Vatican in the composition of the encylical") but by his own congregation (the Columbans -- see this) and by Vatican Radio, which not only acknowledges that he was one of the theologians consulted for the encyclical, but also chose to interview him about its importance. (Keep in mind that it is exceedingly rare for any of the actual drafters or advisors for an Encyclical to be publicly identified by official Church sources.)

Is it a shock to find a dissident 'theologian' guiding this unCatholic reorientation of man and nature, weakening our natural rights against the all-powerful state?  Not in FrancisChurch it's not.

Rorate goes on to make an analysis of Fr. McDonagh's impact on the Pope's hysterical manifesto.  We should expect 'deep change.'  Communist crucifixes are the tip of the iceberg.

We have to ask ourselves now: In FrancisChuch, with error not only holding power but reigning and having sway, and a muscled-out Pope still appearing in white; what is the relationship between a Catholic united to the true Church and Francis?  What is our obligation toward this hostile coup?

Staring like silent spectators at the pillage can't possibly be Christian.



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Stupid Catholic Climate Change Dances in the Rain: You Can Get Trapped School Kids to Do Anything ]]>
Stupid Catholic Climate Change Dances in the Rain: You Can Get Trapped School Kids to Do Anything

By Frank Walker

                  This must be one of those calamities happening.

This story out of India would already be terrifying even if it weren't Catholic.

Supporting Pope Francis’ global call for urgent action on climate change, children in New Delhi took to the streets to create awareness for the environment.

“People tend to ignore the need to preserve the environment and carry on with their lives. I hope they will take into consideration what the pope has said on the issue,” Kalpana Singh told

Singh was among the 7-15 year-olds taking part in a dance event on New Delhi streets July 12 using colorful umbrellas, unicycles and holding banners, despite the heavy downpour.

Deepak, who uses only one name, told, that he was concerned about the increasing number of natural calamities across the world. “We have caused this harm to our mother Earth and we will have to take steps to rectify it. The sooner we start, the better.”

Why does Deepak only use one name and when am I going to get one of these calamities?  They give you weeks home from work and they bring the whole neighborhood out for barbecues.

This kind of thing is so widespread, reaching now even to the infamous pen of the replacement Pope, that it may not seem like much.  But take your mind back to when you were a child.  Only in a dystopian sci-fi novel would you have found children mouthing creepy robotic nonsense and being ordered to dance in the rain.

Pope Francis  recently released the encyclical Laudato si' (Praise be to you — On Care For Our Common Home). Addressed to every person on the planet, the pope blamed human greed for the critical situation "Our Sister, mother Earth" now finds herself in.

"This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her," he wrote.

This better part of that 'encyclical' is just insulting propaganda from one acting as the Vicar of Christ.  There's almost nothing Catholic about it.

The Earth isn't my sister. I don't care what St. Francis might have said.  My sister is my sister and the Earth is a planet.  Is that what it means to be religious now?  We have to say stupid things and pretend they mean something?

The New Delhi event, a part of the Pope4Planet campaign, was organized by the Church-based social organizations Caritas India, Chetnalaya and Nine is Mine.

Caritas is not a church-based organization.  It is a statist machine pretending to be Catholic. Atrocities like this don't originate from actual people or the true Church.  They come only from governments intent on control.

More than 250 people signed petitions addressed to world leaders in the U.N. Climate Summit to be held in Paris in November, asking them to take responsibility for climate change and take steps to control it.

This Paris meeting is very, very important to FrancisChurch and its worldly accomplices.

“People are just waiting for an opportunity to do something for the environment,” Amrit Sangma, spokesman of Caritas India, told

No they're not.  They 're getting paid to say things like this, and kids will do anything to get out of government jail-schools, even dance around like fools in the rain.



Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ When Dissidents Write Encyclicals They Fill Them With Heresy; Stupid Catholic Climate Change Dances in the Rain: You Can Get Trapped School Kids to Do Anything; What Does Archbishop Cupich Know About Catechesis Anyway? ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

When Dissidents Write Encyclicals They Fill Them With Heresy

Stupid Catholic Climate Change Dances in the Rain: You Can Get Trapped School Kids to Do Anything

What Does Archbishop Cupich Know About Catechesis Anyway?





... ]]>
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Francis Leaves Communist Crucifix at the Feet of Our Lady of Dialogue; When the EPA Creates Catholic Doctrine, All Must Obey It; Maybe They Didn't Take Away The Old Mass Because They Like Us ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Francis Leaves Communist Crucifix at the Feet of Our Lady of Dialogue


When the EPA Creates Catholic Doctrine, All Must Obey


Maybe They Didn't Take Away The Old Mass Because They Like Us









... ]]>
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Maybe They Didn't Take Away The Old Mass Because They Like Us ]]>
Maybe They Didn't Take Away The Old Mass Because They Like Us

By Frank Walker

                                              By their fruits...

The terrific Pat Archbold has the latest in a series of interviews with old-school Catholic and freedom fighter, Ann Barnhardt.  In it she makes two 'transformational' (as the Left likes to say) points about the Mass.  One regarding Vatican motivations, so alive once again in this seemingly sinister Francis Era; and the other about grace.

Before there can be any discussion of the Novus Ordo the concepts of  "validity" and "licitness" must be understood.  If a Mass is INVALID, Our Lord does NOT come down on the altar, the Eucharist is NOT confected and the Holy Sacrifice is NOT offered.  If a Mass is ILLICIT, the Eucharist is confected and Our Lord does come, but He is, depending on the severity of the infraction and motivation of the malefactor, in a range from displeased to very, very angry.  But with whom is He angry?  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Our Lord is angry not only with the priest, but also with the PEOPLE who tolerate and embrace the liturgical faults and crimes of the clergy.  In fact, St. Thomas said that people who consent to liturgical abuse do not "obtain the reality of the sacrament".

"Sometimes the one celebrating the sacraments differently [than prescribed] does not vary those things that are essential to the sacrament [i.e., the form and matter], and in that case, the sacrament is indeed conferred; but one does not obtain the reality of the sacrament unless the sacrament’s recipient is immune from the fault of the one celebrating it differently."  (In IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 2, qa. 2, ad 4)

Now, when Thomas says they are not obtaining the "res," or reality of the Sacrament, he doesn't mean they are not receiving Jesus really, physically, substantially present in the Eucharist. Oh they absolutely receive our Lord, but not the benefit of receiving Him, not the grace. Rather, as St. Paul says, they eat and drink their own damnation. If one pauses and thinks about the gravity of what the Angelic Doctor said, one quickly realizes how the following statistics are not only possible, but entirely predictable given the Novus Ordo paradigm:

  • As of 2001, only 17% of Catholics in the U.S. attended Mass every week, which is, of course, obligatory under pain of mortal sin.
  • Of those who attend Mass "regularly", less than 30% believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  For a non-trivial percentage of the 70% who do not believe in the Real Presence, it is because they have never been told or taught of the Real Presence in any way.
  • Among white Catholic Americans, 54% voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  That number dropped to a MERE 50% in 2012.
  • Among Hispanic Catholic Americans, 72% voted for Obama in 2008, and 75% in 2012.
  • In excess of 60% of American Catholics support sodomite "marriage", and Catholics have consistently "led the way" in polls on this question.
  • All over the world, support for and active use of contraception among Catholics is in excess of 90%.
  • 55% of American Catholics support abortion in all or most cases.

I agree with Ann and many others that the Church, and the world along with it in our time, is suffering from a lack of Christian grace brought on by the suppression of the Mass.  The act of supreme faith and worship is much missed.  Although blindingly obvious, without eyes of faith it is impossible to see how much the Mass had elevated civilization, or how much it's absence has debased it.

The Novus Ordo Masses are mostly valid, but the amount of grace flowing into the people, if what St. Thomas teaches is true, is little to none, not only because so many of them are receiving Holy Communion in unconfessed mortal sin, but also because the only way for an adult to receive the graces flowing from the Novus Ordo is to spend the entirety of the Mass begging God's mercy and making reparation for the illicit liturgical actions freely chosen by the priest and consented to by the people, and further begging God's mercy and making reparation for the massively compromised nature of the Novus Ordo itself, created as it was with full malice aforethought by Freemasonic-Communist-sodomite infiltrators of the Church, and again, consented to by the people, who have historically been the last and most strident line of defense against liturgical abuse.

What? Communists infiltrating the Church?  That would never happen, right?

Can we at least agree that the only Pope who ever, ever had the hubris to force his own version of the Mass may perhaps have been motivated by something other than a loving faith?

Or are you one of those weak-Jesus Christians who blames the world for the Church?



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ When the EPA Creates Catholic Doctrine, All Must Obey It ]]>
When the EPA Creates Catholic Doctrine, All Must Obey It

By Frank Walker

           FrancisChurch 'catholics' obey the new morality for you.


It's important to remember that when we talk about the new FrancisGospel - so beloved by anti-Catholic technocrats and communists, and it's dream of FrancisTopia, it would be a gross mistake to think its new moral code will be in any way voluntary.  I know, right and wrong, as they have been revealed to us by God and his saints, should be something we can generally choose, but that doesn't have anything to do with it.

World leaders have a “moral obligation” to fight climate change, and top Obama aides are making good on that obligation with its climate rule for power plants, two administration officials write in a new blog post.

Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy and Ambassador to the Vatican Ken Hackett wrote Monday that the EPA’s carbon rule fits with Pope Francis’s moral call to action on climate change released last month.

“He makes clear our moral obligation to prevent climate impacts that threaten God's creation, especially for those most vulnerable,” McCarthy and Hackett wrote in the post on the EPA’s blog and The Huffington Post.

The officials lay out various harms of climate change, such as the effects of higher sea levels on the island nation of Tuvalu and increased extreme weather throughout the world.

“For all these reasons, the U.S. government, through the EPA, is taking steps to make good on our moral obligation,” they wrote. “Later this summer, the agency will finalize a rule to curb the carbon pollution fueling climate change from our nation's largest source — power plants.”

See?  It's just morality.  The EPA chief even helped Pope Francis write an encyclical to make it actual Church teaching.  No big deal.  Now an EPA rule is a Catholic Church rule for all time, yes?

Don't like the sound of all this.  Don't worry.  McCarthy and Ambassador Hackett are both 'Catholic' so it's all internal and in the fold, so to speak.

McCarthy, a Catholic, has highlighted Francis’s encyclical in recent weeks to promote the carbon rules, which will seek a 30-percent cut in the power sector’s carbon by 2030.

She also traveled to Vatican City in January to meet with top church officials and discuss Francis’s encyclical and administration officials’ work on climate, including the power plant rules.

Get used to this.  At this rate, before it's all over the only people left who don't hate our new FrancisChurch will be mid-level government bureaucrats scrambling for position, Hollywood stars, Jesuits, and a few gay people.



Read more at The Stumbling Block











... ]]>
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Francis Leaves Communist Crucifix at the Feet of Our Lady of Dialogue ]]>
Francis Leaves Communist Crucifix at the Feet of Our Lady of Dialogue

By Frank Walker

                 Praying to 'purify the impure' for FrancisChurch?


The Eponymous Flower has a recap of the Pope's flight home from Paraguay where he was asked about the revealing gift he received from Communist dictator and admirer, Evo Morales.

On the return flight to Rome Pope Francis answered a few questions for the accompanying journalists on the plane. The Catholic Church leader was asked also to explain the provocative gift made the Pope of the hammer and sickle with Christ from the Bolivian President Evo Morales. Vatican Radio published the questions and complete answers in the original language.

Aura Vistas Miguel (Portugal Vaticanist): "Holiness, how did you feel when you saw the gift of President Morales with sickle and hammer with Christ? What became of this subject?"

Pope Francis: "I - it is strange - did not know that and did not know that Father Espinal was a sculptor and a poet. I have learned that during  these days. I've seen it and it was a surprise for me. Secondly: It can qualify as a genre of protest art. For example, there was an exhibition by a brave, creative Argentine sculptor  in Buenos Aires a few years ago. There was protest art, and I remember a work that showed a crucified Christ on a bomber coming down. This was a critique of Christianity, which is allied with imperialism, represented as a bomber.

The trip through Latin America has been enlightening for the whole world.  Many people have not been able to relate to the way Francis thinks, it's so entirely radical.  But that is the world from which he's emerged.  Being a Latin American Jesuit must be something like spending your entire life at sea.

When questioned about that evil Crucifix, his resentment is right at the surface. His mind goes right to an 'imperialist' (American?) bomber.  In FrancisUniverse, nothing Catholic can be taken for what it is.  It has to be seen in light of some campaign, some ugly battle.  Is it possible for Francis to see Christ's death for what it is?  No.  It must be attached to the cause.

But Pope Francis must now walk back and reassure.  There are 'many currents' to liberation theology, see.  The sliver condemned by the Church was just one.

First point: So I knew nothing about it; Second point: I qualify it as protest art that can be offensive in some cases. In some cases. Third, for this particular case: Father Espinal was killed in 1980. That was a time when the liberation theology had many different currents, one of them was the Marxist analysis of reality, and Fr. Espinal belonged to this. I knew because I was at that time Rector of the Faculty of Theology and they talked a lot about it, and who their representatives were in the different currents. In the same year  the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Father Arrupe, wrote a letter to the whole society about the Marxist analysis of reality in the theology that he stopped a little, saying, No, you can not. These are different things, you can not do that, that's not right. And four years later, in 1984, the CDF published the first small volume, the first statement of the Liberation Theology, which criticized it.

They didn't like hammer and sickle crucifixes in those other currents - too much like communism, right?  You didn't like it either.

If Fr. Espinal was part of the 'bad liberation theology,' then why did you lay flowers at his grave, praise his 'martyrdom' and his fight, accept his twisted cross, lay it at the foot of Our Lady?  Is the Pope losing track of all the currents out there?  No.  It's just 'inter-liberation theological' dialogue.

Dialogue is so important.  Without it, you'd never get away with anything rotten.

Then came the second, which was more open to the Christian outlook. I simplify, of course. Let's take a hermeneutics of that era.   Espinal is an enthusiast of this Marxist analysis, as well as theology, for which he used Marxism. Hence comes this.  The poems of Espinal belong to this genre of protest, but it was his life, it was his way of thinking, he was a special man with a lot of human genius, and who fought in good faith. As I have done such a hermeneutics, I understand this. For me it was not an insult. But I had to make this hermeneutics, and I say this to you, so that no false opinions arise. This object is with me now, it's coming with me. You may have heard that President Morales wanted to give me two honors, the highest award of Bolivia and then the Order of Fr. Espinal, a new order. Well, I have never accepted a ceremony that does not suit me. But he did it with a lot of good will and the desire to do me favor. And I thought that that comes from the people of Bolivia - I've been praying for it and I thought: If I bring it to the Vatican, where it goes to  a museum and no one sees it. So I thought to offer it to the Virgin of Copacabana, the Bolivian Mother, so that it goes to the Sanctuary: The work will be in the Sanctuary of Copacabana, together with the two awards that I received. Christ, however, I take with. Thanks. "

I have never accepted a ceremony that does not suit me?  I left the communist crucifix in the Ecuadoran church where it wouldn't be hidden away?

This pope is all fight.  He twists and bends but he doesn't really give.



Read more at The Stumbling Block







... ]]>
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The Case that Lost Marriage ]]>
The Case that Lost Marriage

By Fr. Marcel Guarnizo

(Original: July 3, 2015)

Given the decision of the Supreme Court on June 26th to grant a constitutional status to homosexual marriage, it is critical to review and answer many of the questions that went unanswered during oral arguments in the case, with a special emphasis on correcting errors that were put forth during the hearing. It is also a time to critically assess the strategies that have been implemented by some of the marriage advocates and resolutely seek better options.

Discussions on fundamental questions such as marriage have to start with a proper understanding and definition of the subject at hand. The “what questions,” (e.g., what is marriage?) and their proper answers are the first and necessary requisite for understanding why the defense of marriage as the union of one man and a woman is not an act of injustice nor an act of sexual discrimination. A proper operational definition of marriage also clarifies why the contrary formulation (“homosexual marriage”) is incompatible with the facts about marriage.

During the April 2015, oral arguments, Justices Alito, Roberts, and Scalia correctly zeroed in on the “what” question from the get go. Justice Roberts noted: “The argument on the other side is that they’re seeking to redefine the institution.” Justice Kennedy also pointed out that the definition of marriage “…has been with us for millennia.” Justice Alito saw clearly that a proper operational definition of marriage is the necessary starting point. During the deliberations he asked, “What do you think are the essential elements of marriage…?”

The pro-marriage lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and before them, some of the advocates in the marriage debate, have improperly defined marriage and its constitutive parts.

These thinkers have been defining the essential elements of marriage in terms of children and the good of the child. However, children are not an essential element of marriage. Many of the mistakes made during the hearing had to do with this error.

Children are not a necessary component of that which constitutes marriage. This improper understanding of marriage shared by the lawyers on the pro-marriage side of the SCOTUS oral arguments led to erroneous reasoning derived from this seemingly small initial error. As can be seen from the transcript of the oral hearing, the lawyers of the pro-marriage side seemed philosophically unprepared to deal with many of the questions the justices presented.


“A Small Error in the Beginning Leads to a Big One in the End”

I will limit my reflections to Question 1 of the hearing, that is, whether “homosexual marriage” is a constitutional right, as Question 2, regarding the status of “homosexual marriages” in states that forbid them was quite dependent on the outcome of the first question.

On Question 1, Mr. John J. Bursch, Esq., Michigan’s special assistant attorney general, argued the pro-marriage side. Bursch started with an opening statement that I can only describe as philosophically nearly unintelligible and positively incorrect on many grounds. Mr. Bursch avoided the essential question: What is marriage? His strategy was to stick to a procedural defense of marriage, the question: Who decides what marriage is? This strategy led to unsolvable problems for the marriage side.

  1. “This case isn’t about how to define marriage. It’s about who gets to decide that question… And we’re asking you (the court) to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”

Most of what is asserted in that statement is incorrect. There is no such thing as a “fundamental liberty interest,” of every individual to decide what is the meaning of marriage. Inventing further “pseudo fundamental rights,” is only adding to the problem.

Furthermore, none hold the “right” to arbitrarily formulate the definition of marriage. The claim holds a fatal and fundamental error, namely the presumption that marriage can be justly redefined, and furthermore that we have some fundamental right, or “liberty interest,” at stake in personally redefining it.

If the claim is that every American has in fact the fundamental right to define marriage, what do we make of the just complaint of millions of Americans against the homosexual lobby trying to redefine the reality of marriage?

Marriage does not proceed from a definition. The definition follows from the reality of a special kind of union sought from time immemorial between a man and a woman. The reality of marriage precedes the definition and its protection by law. The claim that there exists a “fundamental liberty” for each one of us to define marriage is absurd.

The marriage definition corresponds to a reality, which, as some of the justices pointed out during the court hearing, has accompanied mankind throughout its history with little fuss and bother, until the year 2001. In 2001, the Dutch tried to alter reality to apply the name of marriage to relations that do not have the essential elements of what it means to be married. Justice Breyer pointed out that the relation defined as marriage, always and everywhere between men and women, has been with the human race for ten thousand years. Marriage is the proper name and the result and proper description of one relationship, that of husbands and wives in a marital union.


The Nature or Essence of Marriage

Justice Alito’s question, “What are the essential elements of marriage?” is the crux of the matter.

What are the defining, essential, necessary elements to attain marriage? Marriage requires two things:

  1. A man and a woman
  2. The free consent to the marital union

By free I mean voluntary consent, but also that the proper subjects of marriage are without impediments to give the free consent required.

During the oral hearing, the pro-marriage side erroneously tied children to an essential definition of marriage. Mr. Bursch argued, “And when you change the definition of marriage to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences…”

This is an error. Marriages validly exist, with or without children. Children may be the result of marriage, but they are not necessary to constitute a marriage.

Children are essential to the definition of what constitutes a family, for a married couple without children is not a family. The constitutive definition of a family needs children as part of its essential elements, for without children a couple is just that, a married couple. Obviously, we have married couples that have no children.

Justice Sotomayor pursued this faulty understanding of marriage at length, “So when people come in and ask for a marriage license, they just ask a simple question: Do you want children? And if the answer is no, the State says, no marriage license for you. Would that be constitutional?”

Justice Kagan hit hard at the same mistaken notion of marriage, “… the best way to promote this procreation-centered view of marriage is just to limit marriage to people who want children.”

Justice Ginsburg dealt the fatal blow, “Suppose a couple, a 70-year-old couple comes in and they want to get married…”

Laughter broke out in the audience witnessing the proceedings.


“A small error in the beginning leads to a big one in the end.”


Redefining the Reality of Marriage

At this point, it is important to highlight how the homosexual lobby is seeking to redefine the reality requirement for marriage. The homosexual lobby is seeking to eliminate one essential element of the definition, the need for the proper subjects of the relation, before free consent can be rendered. They wish to ignore that every claim requires the proper subjects of the right to be the ones making the claim.

Their redefinition improperly seeks to make the second essential element of marriage—consent—the element that constitutes the whole. Consent is indeed needed for marriage, but it is not sufficient to qualify for that which marriage is.

The marriage redefinition crowd fails to acknowledge that the proper subjects are first required to render the consent. No one can legally consent to any contract in law if it cannot be proved that one may make the contract or is a proper party to the contract.

The issue has not previously come to the fore because for millennia it has been obvious that a man and a man cannot constitute the wife-husband relation. Men are not wives and women cannot be husbands. The claim of homosexual marriage is akin to identity theft: Men claiming to be wives and women claiming to be husbands.

But we live in a time in which post-modern thinking has taken over the reasoning of the West. The mantra of the post-modern worldview is that “there are no facts, only interpretations.” Granted, under this departure from reality, anything is possible.

The argument that consent is all that is needed denies that natural limitations can circumscribe or limit the parties to the marital union. If natural limitations were superseded by the mere consent of willing parties, all kinds of relations, which neither in law nor reality can be considered marital, would become candidates to be defined as definition of marriage. For instance, if consent is all that is required, a father could marry his son (assuming he is an adult), and they can both consent to the wedding. Incest would be possible if no natural limitations can circumscribe marriage. Polygamy would also be licit if consent is all that is required. Clearly, consent alone is meaningless and insufficient by itself to be considered the constitutive element of marriage.

Is the Denial of Homosexual Marriage Akin to the Prohibition of Interracial Marriages?


“What is the Reason for the Exclusion rather than the reason for the non-inclusion?” (Justice Kagan)

Justices Sotomayor and Breyer asserted that the reason for the non-inclusion of homosexual unions in the definition of marriage is no different from the unwillingness in certain nations, at a particular historical moment, to allow interracial marriages.

But if one understands the proper definition of marriage and its constitutive elements, it is easier to see why the banning of interracial marriages was unjust and how it differs factually from the case of two men or two women seeking marriage.

Justice Sotomayor stated her main objection to heterosexual marriage in this regard, “Has black-and-white marriage been treated fundamentally? … And that, for me, is as simple as the question gets.”

Simply put, Justice Sotomayor, a black man and a white woman, or a black woman and a white man, who seek marriage, fulfill both constitutive elements necessary for marriage: 1) a man and a woman, 2) freely consenting to the marital union.

Having therefore in that relationship the constitutive or essential elements needed for marriage, to ban the possibility of marriage between two people of different races was completely unjustifiable. “Proper race” or “equality of race” is not a constitutive element to marriage; therefore no good reason existed to impede these couples from marrying. The essential requirements for marriage have never included a man and a woman of the same race. That is an improper formulation. A man and a woman suffice to attain marriage if they freely consent to the marital union. This is what made the denial of interracial marriage unjust.

But this is of course not the case if a black man and a white man had presented themselves for marriage. In this case, it would be completely justified to point out that the necessary elements for marriage are not present. The marriage would not be allowed, not because they were of different races, but rather because they do not have the necessary constitutive elements for marriage, namely a man and a woman.

It’s that simple.


Marriage Is Not a Fundamental Right

“The right to marriage is, I think, embedded in our constitutional law. It is a fundamental right.” (Justice Sotomayor)

The Constitution states absolutely nothing about what marriage is or is not. Unfortunately, the pro-marriage side conceded this faulty premise, and argued based on this faulty premise, from the get go.

Sotomayor’s implication was clear; if marriage is a fundamental right then no one can be deprived of that right at any time, for any reason, without committing injustice. Fundamental rights are not dependent on State referendums, courts, or anything else. If it is a fundamental right, it cannot be denied justly to anyone.

Fundamental rights are by nature universal. Sexual preference on the other hand, can be quite particular. The 2013 U.S. National Health Study found that 96.6% of the American population self-identified as straight, (their language), 1.6% of the population considered themselves to be homosexuals, 0.7% bisexual, and 0.3% transgender. On what basis could one construe a fundamental right based on sexual orientation? There is nothing fundamental or universal about these sexual orientations. The rule of law protecting actual fundamental rights is not biographical. It, by necessity, deals with rights that are universal.

The confusion arises because the ability to marry for those who fulfill the essential requirements for the marriage union is a particular exercise of a fundamental right, which is in fact universal, namely, the fundamental right of association. Citizens possess the just claim vis-à-vis the government that we cannot be forbidden to associate. This because human beings are by nature social beings and it would be inhuman to ban human association.

But note the distinction. My fundamental right to associate, vis-à-vis the government, is incorrectly understood if a further claim is made, namely that I have a fundamental right to enter any particular association I may choose to join. There is no fundamental right that owes me entry into every association I desire to join. Entry into particular associations is not regulated by the fundamental right to associate.

Each particular form of association has limits and regulations to which I do not have an immediate claim to join at will. Some of the limits for particular associations are “de iure” by law, some are found in bylaws, some are based on certain principles and goals that the association seeks to pursue. And some have limitations due to no one’s volition but are simply limitations due to natural facts. In the case of marriage, the immediate limitation is due to natural facts. The proper subjects for this association (marriage) must be of different genders (a man and a woman). Added to this, this particular form of association has been because of its perceived importance for society, from time immemorial protected for its survival and prosperity by law and custom. It has also been in most cultures elevated by a religious bond that indeed has helped maintain its stability.

It is irrational therefore to think that I have a claim in justice to automatically enter any association I may choose.

If this were so, would I also have a fundamental right to join the Redskins football team? Do I have a fundamental right to be admitted into Harvard University? The list would be endless.

Marriage is like the rest of the examples. It is a particular kind of association, one that has limitations, as does every other association. The limitations in marriage are by nature and then by law and custom.

To help see the problem more clearly, let’s consider a few more examples. I may desire to be a Swiss citizen, but life determined that I was born in Washington, D.C. and my parents are not Swiss. It is not a violation of my fundamental right of association if I do not receive a Swiss passport.

Some types of association have even stronger natural impediments, impediments that are limitations due to natural facts. Facts of nature are not the result of anyone’s injustice or prejudice. I can never belong to the Spanish Royal family, however so desperately I would like to. I may indeed claim to be unfulfilled if not admitted. I could claim that only hatred and xenophobia are the reasons for my exclusion. But all this does not alter the fact that I am not a blood relative of the Spanish Royal family. Is this a violation of my fundamental rights?

Plenty of limitations exist in our lives and we must learn to cope with them. A man cannot be a member of the fairer sex, regardless of how many operations or appearance changes he undergoes. A man cannot become a woman. For a man to claim a fundamental constitutional right to be recognized as a woman would be equally absurd.

Does a white woman have a fundamental right (or a constitutional right) to be recognized by the rest of the country as black? Can a white woman become black just because she so desires or because she has the “black inclination or orientation”? Imagine if a small group of white people with an orientation to be black constituted a well-funded, vociferous lobby. Would they eventually be able to claim a fundamental human right or a constitutional right to be recognized as black by the 318 million people in the United States?

Likewise marriage has natural limitations; two men simply do not qualify for the association of husband and wife in marriage.


Homosexual Men and Women Are Not Denied the Opportunity to Marry

The discussion of marriage as an American constitutional right (which, as we see, it is not) has thus far ignored the fact that men and women with homosexual or bisexual tendencies are not denied the opportunity to marry. Many, in fact, are married to people of the opposite sex. They have willingly chosen a heterosexual relation—with all its difficulties—above their homosexual proclivities. These men and women have chosen to put other goals—family, complementarity in marriage, and children—higher than their attraction towards people of the same gender. Undoubtedly many are happy and find fulfillment in things that they consider more important and of higher value than their sexual tendency.

Men and women with homosexual tendencies do fulfill the essential elements required to enter into marriage as we have defined it here: a man and a woman freely consenting to the marital union. As long as a man or a woman with homosexual tendencies intends to marry a person of the opposite sex and there is free consent, marriage is possible.


Marriage Is Not “Dignity Bestowing”

Another point of confusion at the SCOTUS hearing centered on Judge Kennedy’s erroneous view that the institution of marriage bestows dignity on the participants. Consider his statement during the oral arguments: “I don’t understand that [marriage] is not dignity bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage. … It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that same ennoblement.”

In retorting, Mr. Bursch (pro-marriage side) went back and forth on this issue, but clearly did not understand that marriage does not confer human dignity and furthermore that the State also cannot confer human dignity. Human dignity is derived from nature by virtue of the fact that someone is a human being. This is completely unalienable, and independent of the State or its institutions. Human dignity is in no way affected by the particular marital status of the individual.


The Quality of the Consent is Not Constitutive of Marriage

The extensive debate before the high court also swirled around the nature of the consent, love, or lack of love, emotional commitment, and the rest, as distinguishing elements between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This was foolhardy.

The State has no duty or ability to verify if love is at play, if there is emotional commitment or not, if children will be desired or not. It is also not part of the State’s duty to evaluate the quality of the consent as long as it is free and no natural impediments exist. The quality of the consent is that which the man and woman in a relationship must freely decide and evaluate themselves before they commit to the marital union.

It is also not part of the State’s duties to regulate procreation through marriage. That is the totalitarian view practiced by the Chinese communist regime, which enforces a one-child policy and forced abortion or dire penalties if families exceed the one child quota. When Justice Kagan asked the pro-marriage side, “… are you saying that recognizing same-sex marriage… will harm the State interest in regulating procreation through marriage?” Mr. Bursch replied, “We are saying that Your Honor.”

Contrary to Mr. Bursch’s position, I argue that the State has no authority to regulate the procreation of its citizens. The small error in the beginning of the court arguments—the confusion of trying to make children an essential element of marriage— led to many mistaken conclusions and arguments, this being one of them.

Bursch improbably argued that two different world views exist between heterosexual couples and homosexual ones, “… the other couple (homosexual couples) believes that marriage is more about the emotional commitment to each other, and if that commitment fades, then they may not stay together…Looking at those two couples… one believing it’s all about staying with their kids (heterosexual marriage), the other believing it’s all about emotion and commitment (“homosexual marriage), could have different results.”

Again, in Mr. Bursch’s improper understanding of the distinction between so-called homosexual unions and heterosexual marriage, he clearly opposed love and emotional commitment (homosexual couples), to a crude biologism (heterosexual marriage) that would find its belief system in keeping the biological connection to children alive in the mind of the child and society.

The justices accurately pointed out that his argument made no sense and was rationally unverifiable. This false contraposition failed to see the obvious: Heterosexual marriage is indeed ideally agreed to because there is love and commitment on the part of the husband and the wife.

However, love and emotional commitment is not the distinguishing element between marriage (a man and a woman) and homosexual relations. To create these false distinctions, (heterosexual biologism attached to children vs. homosexual love and commitment) is most unhelpful. They simply create error upon error regarding marriage, its proper vision, its ends, and its essential definition.

I humbly submit that our side needs to revise its arguments.

The Supreme Court has started down this path but it will never be able to justly deal with the consequences of the chaos it has just unleashed.


Marcel Guarnizo is a philosopher and theologian, engaged in the public debate on philosophy, ethics, theology and economics.


Originally published at WorldNetDaily.

... ]]>
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ <i>FLASHBACK:</i> On The Incompatibility Of Christianity With Socialism And Communism ]]>
On The Incompatibility Of Christianity With Socialism And Communism

By Rev. Marcel Guarnizo

           Evo Morales hands the hammer and sickle crucifix to Pope Francis


FLASHBACK: February 5, 2014

There has been much discussion in recent weeks over the debt of Christianity to—and its compatibility with —the ideas and praxis of the socialist revolution, and even of communism. Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that we share some of the ideals of the socialist revolution because it seems to them that communism, socialism and Christianity are for the poor. In addition to this most unfortunate error, the opposite fallacy has also been made popular in the minds of many, namely that capitalists and advocates of a free market economy, hate the poor.

But the historical record of communism tells an entirely different story.  I have worked with the countries of the former Soviet Union for over 20 years, and I have seen what communism does to populations and nations. The scourge of the socialist revolution around the world gave us 6 million people killed by artificial famines in Ukraine and, as documented by The Black Book of Communism, 20 million victims in the U.S.S.R., 65 million in China, a million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, another 2 million in Cambodia, a million more in the rest of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and through the international Communist movement and related parties about 100,000 more victims in various nations.  This is a body count that reaches to 100 million victims worldwide. Communism completely destroyed the economy, social fabric, and political culture of dozens of nations. It hollowed out the intelligentsia, ruined every economy where the seed of socialism fully “bloomed,” and abrogated fundamental rights and individual freedoms of the nations it subjugated.  Clearly the Judeo-Christian commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not among the doctrinal teachings of communism and the socialist revolution. It is hard to believe that the socialist revolution—unlike Nazism—still finds promoters and defenders in the West.

The compatibility of Christianity and its legitimate concern for the poor owes nothing to the violent and inhuman regimes created by the socialist revolution. No system in human history has produced more poverty and misery than communism.

No greater foe has the Church ever encountered, than the communist revolution. During the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of religious and priests were sent to forced labor camps or simply executed. Five year plans to abolish religion were implemented and no true believer was ever safe in such nations. What social doctrine of the Church was ever derived from such madness? Communism and the socialist revolution are not only the antithesis of Christianity. They are also incompatible with free, just, and democratic societies.

The case against the “wonders” of the socialist revolution can be put to rest by simply reminding people that brick and mortar walls, guarded by armed soldiers, were necessary to keep people from fleeing the manmade paradise of “social equality” created by communists. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the “…strongest proof of the failure of socialism is the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Neither is a complex apologia required to explain why there is no substantial difference between socialism and communism. Communism, as American writer Whittaker Chambers documented, is nothing more than socialism with claws. Theoretically the two systems share the same ideals and philosophical framework. Communism simply takes socialism to its logical, final consequences.

The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.

To mount a case against the socialist and the communist would seem completely unnecessary given the historical record. But it is necessary, because, as we see, communism’s ideology continues to ensnare the minds of the West and many of its leaders. Perhaps the statement of Whittaker Chambers, when he decided to defect from his service to the Soviet Union, that he had chosen to join, “… the losing side” is not altogether settled. Many think the fall of the Soviet Union proved Chambers wrong, but I submit that Chambers understood, perhaps more clearly than most, the lasting and insidious nature of the socialist revolution in the West. It seems to me, that the West’s great partial victory against the Soviet Union is far from being final. Though the Soviet Empire has fallen, the West remains in an equally powerful cultural battle, which the architects of the socialist revolution themselves anticipated.

Gramsci’s Tactic: Cultural Hegemony

The socialist revolution in the West has been greatly influenced by the tactics of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Writing in the 1930s, Gramsci recognized that the culture of the West, and in particular, the Catholic Church, stood as robust obstacles to a communist economic and political takeover in Europe. Gramsci proposed that a takeover of the cultural institutions—the achievement of cultural hegemony—was the necessary first step to the eventual takeover of the political and economic structures of a free society.

This strategy meant that socialists should tirelessly work on the takeover over of universities and education, media, churches, and other cultural intermediary structures of the free world. He thought that the eroding of the cultural foundations would weaken a free society’s natural defenses and this would open the path for the economic and political aims of the socialist revolution.

I would submit that the “cultural hegemony” of the socialist revolution is increasing in the West and at an alarming pace. The increasing loss of ground in our culture to socialism and its allies is creating a growing threat to the political and economic freedoms of America and Western democracies.

Therefore, it seems to me, the battle between the free world and the socialist revolution is far from settled.  The errors of communism are legion, and the West should not slumber, as the battle is far from over.

The Errors of Communism

  1. 1.   The Error Concerning the Nature of Man

Communism starts not with an economic error but an anthropological one. The economic and political effects of the communist system are but a symptom of a previous error, an error about the nature of man.

The French 19th century political economist and writer Frédéric Bastiat clearly makes the point. Socialism, Bastiat argued, sees man as mere raw material, to be disposed of, to be molded by the “all knowing,” state. In his book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, economist Friedrich von Hayek launches a similar attack on the socialists and their “omniscient state.”  Hayek demonstrated the impotence of the socialist to run an economy

Man is just matter: This materialist vision of man is the first and most profound error of the socialist revolution. The materialist vision of man is what justifies the communists’ insistence that they may legitimately do whatever it takes to achieve their utopia. We must be transformed by the state, into its image and likeness.

This materialist view disregards therefore the true dignity of man and the true nature of the human person—his rationality and free will. The artificial social orders engineered by socialists are completely devoid of a proper understanding of man and the kind of being that he is.

Writes Bastiat, they “… start with an idea that society is contrary to nature; devise contrivances to which humanity can be subjected; lose sight of the fact that humanity has its motive force within itself; consider men as base raw materials; propose to impart to them movement and will, feeling, and life; set oneself apart, immeasurably above the human race—these are the common practices of the social planners. The plans differ; the planners are all alike.”

Socialism and communism are fundamentally contrary to Christianity, for no Christian can hold that man is mere matter. Materialism is the exact opposite of the most basic philosophical and theological assertion of Christianity, namely that man is body and spirit.

Whittaker Chambers identified the essence of the radical revolutionary, the communist, the socialist, the radical progressive, in one key word: change. Writes Chambers, “The revolutionary heart of Communism … is a simple statement of Karl Marx… it is necessary to change the world…The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across barriers of language and differences of class and education, in defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weakness of the body and the irresolutions of the mind, even unto death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world.”

  1. 2.   The Error Concerning Man’s Relation to the State

The first fundamental error leads to the second fatal error: Socialism perverts the proper relation between man and the state.

If man is just matter that needs to be molded and transformed to the will of the state (the social engineer), then indeed man is entirely subservient to the state. In this view, man is born to serve the state, from cradle to grave. Catholic social doctrine holds to the precisely opposite vision: the state exists to serve man

  1. 3.   The Error Concerning Private Property

Communism, even for the amateur reader of its doctrine, considers private property a great evil in society.  Since that is the theory, dispossessing millions of people of their land and putting to death untold millions more, for simply having more than others, has been the common practice of communist regimes.

The Catholic Church has always held private property to be a great good in society and has defended man’s right to private ownership as fundamentally good and compatible with man’s nature, freedom, and dignity. The Church also recognizes private property as a right absolutely necessary for the proper order and functioning of free societies. Respect for one’s neighbor’s private property rights is foundational to the Judeo-Christian doctrine.  The abolition of private property under communism violates the great commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”

This disregard for private property rights continues in our day. In 2008, the socialist President of Argentina, Cristina Kirchner, seized $29 billion of the private retirement savings of Argentinean workers, to use for what the London Telegraph described as “a funding kitty” for her socialist schemes.  The Wall Street Journal characterized Kirchner’s move as “cracking open the piggybank of the nation’s private pension system.” Thou shall not steal, Kristina.

The culture of envy fostered by class-warfare violates yet another commandment, the 10th, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” To create covetousness and the willingness to dispossess those who have more is fundamentally anti-Christian.

  1. 4.   The Error Concerning the Function of Government

Communism and socialism pervert the proper function of government. If man is just an inert piece of matter and is completely subservient to the state, then clearly he is incapable by his own ingenuity, entrepreneurship, abilities, and efforts, with his own failures and successes, to create anything worthwhile in society. Therefore the state, instead of protecting the framework in which man and associations can flourish, must become a social engineer, to change man, and mold him to its utopian ideals. The state proceeds to artificially create the particular conditions and relations required by ideology to achieve the utopian goals of equality and happiness for all. But the proper role of the state is not to make us happy in accordance with its own warped designs.

Since this is not easily accomplished, given that man is free and seeks happiness on his own terms, much coercion is necessary. This includes not only the coercion of the Red Army, but procedural coercion, coercion by penalties and taxation, by the use of governmental powers to force the non-compliant to comply. All of this is completely incompatible with Christianity and a free society.

  1. 5.   The Error Concerning the Function of Law

Communism and socialism pervert the function of law. The rule of law under the communists and their fellow travelers is no longer a useful framework in which each man may operate freely to achieve his ends and goals. It is no longer a light to the mind, a work of reason designed to help order political and social life, forbidding the things that war against a free and just society. For the communist, law becomes a mere instrument of coercion to bend and force citizens to comply with the warped vision of society’s rulers.

Bastiat put it this way: “Socialists desire to practice ‘legal’ plunder…they desire to make the law their own weapon.”

  1. 6.   The Error Concerning Christian Charity

Communism and socialism war against Christian charity.

The socialist revolution depends on so-called class warfare. This artificial warfare, in its many forms—owners of the means of production vs. the laborers, the rich vs. poor, the landowners vs. workers—is the engine that moves society toward the goals of socialism, toward the perfect egalitarian society. The principle of class warfare is flatly and completely contrary to Christianity.

Class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare, generational warfare—and all the other new rubrics for dividing citizens from one another—are intrinsically contrary to the Christian Gospel. Socialists use them all to erode the foundations of Western civilization. Socialist tactics strive to fan the flames of hatred, discord and resentment in society. They seek to create a “culture of envy” and mistrust. They therefore permanently injure the social fabric and harmony of society. Envy, the socialist “virtue,” is considered a capital sin in the Church’s doctrine. Socialism, with its class warfare, could not be more incompatible with the Church’s teaching that charity and justice are the great binding forces in society.

  1. 7.   Errors Concerning the Family and Social Institutions

Communism and socialism are inimical to the family and those organizations which function as intermediary structures between the state and the individual in society. Anyone who has experienced communism need not have such an obvious matter explained. The communists without hesitation separated children from their families, mercilessly indoctrinated them and made their choice of trade or work simply a matter for a communist bureaucrat to decide. They praised and rewarded children who had denounced their parents for deviating from the doctrine and dictates of the party. This is an illegitimate intrusion on the rights of parents. Catholic social doctrine has always held that the parents, not the state, are the primary educators of children.

The Church upholds the principle of subsidiarity, which teaches that intermediary structures between the state and the citizenry must be allowed freedom to carry out their proper functions in society.  These associations are a natural buffer between the state and the individual. The principle of subsidiarity guards associations, the family, and the individual against those who would promote unlimited government and their greed for power.

The current assault of the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services against Catholic healthcare institutions should surprise no one. The socialist state is required to eliminate its strongest competitors to gain greater control. The state, as it is seeking to control the health sector, one-sixth of the U.S. economy, aims to displace the Catholic Church and its mediating institutions. The state is resorting to procedural violence in order to force them to comply or renounce their right to serve the poor and the sick. Comply or get out of the way. So much for caring for the poor.

Required: A United Defense

We see that the communist and socialist state incessantly seeks to attenuate the economic, political, and cultural freedoms of each and every citizen. Therefore, communist errors concerning the nature of man and his relation to the state provide compelling motivation for opposition across the anti-communist political spectrum. All those engaged in the promotion of freedom should seek the common aim of defeating the ever increasing power of the state. Libertarians would be wise to defend the rights of the Catholic Church in its present battle against Obamacare, for in doing so, they fight to keep a safety net over the larger part of society and the individual. The fight here is not about doctrine, but about freedom for all. There is a strategic need for unity among conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals, at this critical moment when freedom for all is threatened by the state. To continue to loose cultural freedoms is what permits, as Gramsci foresaw, the ever increasing loss in economic and political freedom.

Bastiat, in illustrating the need to defend the social order, urged a fusion of the proper defense of economic freedom and the cultural freedoms in society. The economic, cultural, and social freedoms rise and fall together, and must be defended as one. Social conservatives need to realize that if we lose economic freedom we will lose more political and cultural freedoms and therefore economics really matters. But libertarians and others should see that, by curtailing our cultural freedom, the government is gaining the ability to curtail economic freedom.

Bastiat, in his time, also urged for unity against the common foes of freedom. Speaking of the defenders of the correct conclusions in realm of economics and the defenders of virtue, religion, and ethics in society, he explained, “These two systems of ethics, instead of engaging in mutual recrimination, should be working together to attack evil at each of its poles.”

This nightmare of communism recurs in part because of our failure to theoretically dismantle the lies of the socialist revolution in the West.  If this is not done well, on a fundamentally philosophical basis, we will be repeatedly assaulted by new propagandists, who—while admitting communism’s past failures in practice—once again claim that the theory is sound and therefore that the human experiment of the socialist revolution ought to be tried again.  But human beings are not proper subjects of experimentation for political ideologues. We must therefore teach that the theory is erroneous, and deadly. Morally, we cannot afford more corpses to show its devastating effects in practice.

A philosophically sound and united defense by all defenders of freedom is needed at this time.

Justice for the Poor

At a practical level, the first duty of the Christian, before jumping into the arena of social policy vis-à-vis the poor, is not good intentions or a loving heart for the poor. The first necessary requirement in justice is competence.  Social policy for the poor requires sound economic theory. Bad economic theory leads only to further errors in practice, which hurt the poor.

Good intentions alone do not make one competent in economic or social policy.  Simply having a loving heart for the sick does not grant the doctor moral authorization to perform surgery on them.  The surgeon must be competent before he picks up his scalpel. An easy indictment of capitalism and free-markets is wrong-headed and empirically inaccurate. This sort of incompetence in economic theory has hurt, and is hurting, the poor.

Believers must also make clear distinctions regarding action. There is a difference between feeding the poor and alleviating poverty per se. The latter requires the creation of economic wealth. Aiding the poor is a corporal work of mercy in the Catholic Church and it is a good to be freely exercised. But feeding the poor is quite different from alleviating poverty. If we feed a poor beggar on the street, he will remain equally poor even as he consumes the bread we have offered. Food aid to the poor does not create economic networks and economic activity capable of alleviating his poverty.

Mother Teresa was in the business of feeding and caring for the poor but she was not in the complicated business of alleviating poverty. The latter takes economic networks, entrepreneurship, creativity of a different kind, and technical know-how concerning the economy, the markets and financial policy.

Unless the poor are incorporated into economic networks, they will always be in need. To create economic networks, society requires entrepreneurship, risk takers, profit and loss, and―most important―employment. Without a job, the poor man will always be poor.

Asking people to seek a job and work has become almost taboo in the present day. Food stamps are so much easier.  It is important to help the poor, but to create systematic dependency for political gain is wicked. The state loves easy handouts, since they do not pay for them and they garner votes.

Furthermore, the easy handouts obfuscate an objective view and evaluation of failed socialist economic policies.  Socialists, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher put it, are delaying the inevitable day of reckoning―which is “…running out of other people’s money.”   The façade of benevolence may win votes, but it certainly does not help the poor.

Many fail to understand that the Church has always taught what  entrepreneurs know: There is a great sense of dignity in work. Since every man is a moral agent, men should not be deprived of the responsibility and adventure of forging their own paths.  Caring for the poor is necessary, but intentionally increasing dependence is immoral and contrary to the Gospel teaching. It is an injustice to perpetuate economic arrangements that deprive man from working.

One could mount further arguments against the thesis that the social doctrine of the Catholic Church owes something to communism and its many incarnations.  But I will conclude my arguments with the simple assertion that communism’s utopia, in which all men are equal and poverty would disappear, is a dangerous and inhuman illusion.  Poverty cannot be completely eradicated from the face of the earth.  Our Lord Himself taught, “The poor will always be with you.”  If this profound lesson were internalized, the regimes of lethal utopia would be far less enticing.

To Truly Help the Poor

Christian charity and free market entrepreneurship are not only compatible, but necessary to truly aid the poor.

Christian charity strives for the moral betterment of man, and the advancement of our neighbor out of love.  For believers, these are works of religion, which many men and women of good will willingly and freely undertake.  Forcing people “to do good” is the death of the virtue of charity, as charity must always be freely exercised.

But a second factor is equally needed to alleviate poverty: entrepreneurs and the free-market system.  These offer the possibility of a greater and more lasting solution to the problem of poverty.  Creating jobs and industry is a great good, and to diminish the possibilities for entrepreneurs and the private sector and claim the façade of virtue in doing so, is pure folly. Entrepreneurs and the business class do more in the United States for the Church and for vital issues to society, than anywhere else in the world.

The two great lies of socialists and communists, that they are the champions of the poor and that they are the real “Christians” of our time, are myths that ought to be unmasked by all believers. For no regime has ever visited more poverty, death and suffering upon humanity. Civilization has seen clearly what this revolutionary change looks like and we would all be well advised to remember as  philosopher George Santayana warned—“those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

The West has had enough of revolutionaries and utopians. It is time for them and their supporters to pipe down and own up to their failures and crimes.

Rev. Guarnizo is a Roman Catholic priest of the diocese of Moscow. He is also a member of the Mont Pelerin society, founded by F. A. Hayek.


Originally posted at :







... ]]>
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Get Out Your Notepad. FrancisChurch is a Font of New Truths ]]>
Get Out Your Notepad. FrancisChurch is a Font of New Truths

By Frank Walker

                                  No sinners here in this car!

The point of being Pope of FrancisChurch is to 'make doctrine' not defend it.  Isn't that right?  Look at all the new things we keep learning to believe.  We have to go 'ever forward' and never return to the Ancient Mass.  We have to renounce 'small minded rules and conditions that used to be Catholic but really were just spawn of Pharisees.  We have to make 'the poor' the center of the Gospel which actually makes no sense without the poor.  We should even kneel before the poor in Church!  (I'm sure they'll find that uplifting.)

We must hate disunity, renounce war, believe Palestine is a country and in a brand new Cuba.  We have to think ISIS murderers decide who is a true Christian and believe arms makers are un-Christian hypocrites. My remarried father-in-law told my wife the other day that Pope Francis said we can all get divorced now if we want.  Why would he think that?  Most of all, among this font of new truths, it is important that we always remember to hate 'inequality' wherever it exists.

Today Pope Francis has gone even further and made an entirely new social justice.  From now, on Pope Francis says, we have no right to anything if it makes someone else's pile unequal.  From this moment, if you're not poor you're a thief in FrancisChurch.  Good thing he rides in that Fiat.  But what about the driver?

Pope Francis on Tuesday (July 7) said protecting the planet was no longer a choice but a duty and called for a new “social justice” where access to the earth’s resources would be based on equality instead of economic interests.

I always cringe when I hear liberals use the word 'access.'  They are so concerned about everyone's access all the time.  I can't access health care because they want me to pay the doctor!  I must access the earth's resources so I can eat my cereal. Wait a minute.  How is it you have access to Kashi when I have to access these Raisin Bits?!

For people who love 'access' they sure like locking down classrooms and locking truth out of Vatican meetings.

In back-to-back speeches on the third day of his trip to Ecuador, the pope made his first full-court press on environmental issues since the publication last month of his landmark ecology encyclical “Laudato Si.”.

Speaking before a group that included indigenous people of the Equatorial Amazon, he also renewed his call for special protection for the area because of its vital importance to the planet’s ecosystem.

The pope has said he wanted the encyclical to influence a United Nations climate change summit in Paris in December and has now effectively taken his campaign to convince governments on the road. In September he takes his message to the United States and the United Nations.

“One thing is certain: we can no longer turn our backs on reality, on our brothers and sisters, on Mother Earth,” he said in a first speech at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador.

While he did not specifically mention climate change or its causes, he quoted often from the encyclical, which said there was a “very solid scientific consensus” on global warming and its human causes.

He appeared to be making a clear reference to climate change doubters when he said: “It is wrong to turn aside from what is happening all around us, as if certain situations did not exist or have nothing to do with our lives.”

Uh oh.  Sinner again in FrancisChurch!  It's gotta be me.  How could it be Pope Francis?  He's studied chemistry for Pete's sake.


Read more at The Stumbling Block





... ]]>
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ FrancisChurch Doctrine In One Simple Equation ]]>
FrancisChurch Doctrine In One Simple Equation

By Frank Walker

   FrancisChurch of unity and love without conditions or elitist religiosity

Why is it that Pope Francis seems to be deathly afraid of physical separation. To him, Heaven is like one enormous living pile.  It doesn't matter how much it stinks, how uncomfortable, or how hard it is to breath.  So long as there's unity, there it is. Perhaps that's why Pope Francis seems to care so little about the meaning or history associated with the word, 'utopia."

"Evangelization can be a way to unite our hopes, concerns, ideals and even utopian visions." These were the words of Pope Francis during Mass at Quito's Bicentennial Park today.

Over 1.2 million people attended the event, an unprecedented number given the fact that the population of the city is roughly 1.6 million. The park commemorates the first cries of independence that began against Spanish rule in Latin America in 1809.

Prior to the Mass, the Holy Father held a private meeting with the bishops of Ecuador. He then made his way to the park, where enthusiastic crowds greeted him with cheers and throwing flower petals.

In his homily, the Holy Father reflected on the theme of unity and evangelization. He told the faithful that he wished to see the cries for independence and freedom from exploitation that Bicentennial Park represents "under the beautiful challenge of evangelization."

Uniting the idea of Christian evangelization with the populist cries of the worst banana republics is the essence of Liberation Theology.

Jesus' call that all "may be one," he continued, was raised in a context of mission in the world. A world, he noted, that Christ loved dearly despite experiencing "the worst of the world" in his own flesh.

"We too encounter daily a world torn apart by wars and violence. It would be superficial to think that division and hatred only concern struggles between countries or groups in society. In reality, they are a manifestation of that 'widespread individualism' which divides us and sets us against one another, that legacy of sin lurking in the heart of human beings, which causes so much suffering in society and all of creation," he said.

I'm ready to repeat that I'm not against division.  I'm not falling into that FrancisChurch hole.  It's not a sin.  In many ways it's a blessing.  I am against hatred, but I can't honestly say I've seen too much of it.  Mostly I see selfishness, cruelty, and cowardice.  I see the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  'Hatred' is mostly a word used by demagogues and a characteristic of demons.

Then there's 'widespread individualism.'  That's only a sin if you write for a Catholic outlet, teach in a college, or go on television.

The 78-year-old Pontiff said that despite this, Christians are also called to take up Christ's call and accept the grace and duty of unity through evangelization. However, the Pope explained that unity does not mean uniformity or something that is fashioned with set conditions, which he described as a "religiosity of the elite." Rather, unity is a concrete proposal by Jesus to love and care for one's neighbor as explained in the parable of the Samaritan.

OK, Pope Francis.

Division = Bad.

Unity = Good.

Unity ≠ Something that is fashioned with set conditions, i.e. the    "religiosity of the elite." 


FrancisChurch goodness is unity and love of neighbor so long as it has no conditions, no religiosity, and nothing related to power or money.

Why is the entire world telling us this is Catholic teaching and not just the radical rallying of an resentful ignorant mob?



Read more at The Stumbling Block






... ]]>
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT