Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Feast of "The Innocents"...Applied Today

The following is a posting from Non-Faithful Catholics.  Please read and forward to all whom you might feel have an interest in saving The Unborn.
Jesus Is Lord!
As the Magi left Herod searching for The Christ Child, Herod asked them to let him know where Jesus was so he could also pay Him homage.  Of course, we all know that was a lie and the Magi went home a different way so did not reveal the whereabouts of Jesus to Herod.  Being the hard hearted murdered that he was, Herod ordered his troops to murder every male child under the age of two throughout the region of Bethlehem.  Sound familiar?

Well, take today's leaders as an example.  Our own President of the United States supports the genocide of his own people.  In New York City alone, more than 50% of all the abortions on demand are by Blacks.  This past year, there were more abortions than live births in the Black community.  Margaret Sanger would be proud of her Planned Parenthood organization for killing so many "undesirable" soon-to-be members of American Society.  So, let's thank Mr. Obama for his continued support of the "Murder of The Innocents".

I am going to print an article that was sent to me today on this Feast of The Innocents that actually might turn your stomach...if Abortion doesn't do it for you.  

Feminists Rally Behind Sex-Selection Abortion
December 27th, 2011 by Charles Colson Print This Article ·Share This
A few years ago, Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University were
looking at data from the 2000 Census. They noticed that immigrants from China,
Korea, and India had fewer American-born daughters than you would expect.
Whereas among native-born whites, the male-to-female ratio – 1.05 to 1 – was
constant regardless of family size, that wasn’t the case in families from these three
countries. If the oldest child was a girl, then sex ratio for the second child jumped to
1.17 to 1 in favor of boys. And if the first two children were girls, the sex ratio for third
children soared to amazing 1.5 boys for every 1 girl.  The conclusion was inescapable: These families were practicing sex selection to ensure they had a son. As I have told you previously, this practice is common in Asia: by some estimates, there are 100 million fewer girls alive today than there should be.
The combination of pre-natal testing and abortion, coupled with a strong cultural preference for sons, has created a shortage of females in Asia.
Almond and Endlund’s research showed that the practice accompanied immigrants
to the U.S. Another study of two San Francisco-area abortion clinics found that 89
percent of the South Asian patients carrying females had an abortion during the
period covered by the study. For many of the women, it wasn’t their first sex-selection
The reasons behind these abortions demonstrate how hollow phrases like “choice” and “reproductive rights” really are. Writing in Forbes magazine, Richard Miniter described how these women, “pregnant with daughters, reported incredible pressure by in-laws and husbands to produce sons and not daughters.”
They were threatened with “divorce or abandonment . . . beaten, choked or [even kicked in their] abdomen in the hopes of preventing a daughter,” he wrote.
Remember, this is happening in the Bay area, not in some Indian village. And the
pressures that lead to sex-selection abortion are felt even by women with graduate or
professional degrees.
If there is one restriction on abortion the vast majority of Americans support, it is eliminating sex-selection abortion. Yet many of those who, in theory, should be most troubled by the targeting of unborn females are adamantly opposed to outlawing the practice.
I’m speaking, of course, of feminists and their allies. Ironically, they have come out in
opposition to a bill, the Prenatal Discrimination Act, or PRENDA, which would ban the
selected abortion of females in the U.S.
They claim that PRENDA would “stigmatize some women . . . from exercising their
fundamental human right to make and implement decisions about their reproductive
It’s hard to imagine a statement less-grounded in reality: The women in question are
being kept from making and implementing these decisions right now. The law as it
stands facilitates the coercion that forces women to abort their daughters. It’s easier
for a husband to pressure his wife into aborting her unborn daughter here in the U.S.
than in India or China, where sex-selection abortions are illegal.
Pro-abortion forces are insisting that PRENDA is a “ploy.” Now look folks, the fact of
the matter is that the feminist cannot live with the logical consequences of their own
worldview. And if you can’t, what that proves is that worldview, the feminist worldview,
is false.
This update courtesy of BreakPoint.

So, this is how the "Pro-Choice" folks see this situation.  These include "catholic" organizational such as "Catholics for Choice" and of course the pro-choice (Abortion) "catholic politicians" such as Casey of Pennsylvania and of course Secretary Sibelius, who never saw an abortion law she wouldn't sign.  So where are the Bishops in all of this?  Why, silent, of course...they even run away when there is a problem as did Dolan in New York and Bambera of Scranton, and of course, we can't forget Hubbard of Albany in all this, now can we?

One more article to post here from Steve Kellmeyer.  It's an old one, but still quite relevant today.
Read it and weep...this is soooo true.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Join the College of Athanasius
I know a director of religious education (DRE), in a reputedly orthodox diocese, who taught adults movingly and repeatedly about the problems with contraception. In fact, parishioners were actually acknowledging and repenting of the sin. With the arrival of a new pastor, that all stopped. The new pastor, reputed to be a man of
deep prayer, didn’t want to deal with the angry phone calls from wealthy, unconverted parishioners. The DRE was ordered to be silent on the issue. Three silent months later, the DRE was fired. I know of a priest who had a problem. One of the extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (EME) in his parish worked as a counselor
for Planned Parenthood. When he found out, the priest removed the person from ministry. That didn’t last long. The individual who had been dismissed appealed to the bishop. The bishop ordered the priest to rescind the decision. The priest did not want to be crucified by his bishop. The EME was re-instated. I know of an extremely well-known and orthodox Catholic author and speaker who was asked at the podium why certain public heretics, who pretended to be Catholic but publicly supported abortion, were not formally excommunicated. The speaker replied that excommunication was not the answer. The existence of these public officials was really the fault of the lay faithful who voted the heretics into public office. When a follow-up question asked why the bishops put a supporter of partial-birth abortion on its national lay review board, the startled speaker simply said, “I can’t explain that, I don’t know.” The questioner pointed out that badly informed Catholics could use the American bishops’ action to justify their own vote for heretical politicians. The speaker began repeating over and over, “I can’t explain that, I don’t know.” The question-and-answer period was immediately closed.
Many years ago, when a certain English king declared himself head of the Church in England, all the Catholic bishops and public officials agreed that he was. All but one bishop and one public official. St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More were murdered for not agreeing, and hundreds of lay people followed them to the scaffolds. None of the Catholic bishops or public officials did. The Catholic Church was stripped from England like living flesh stripped from the bone.
In America, in the year 2003, Henry VIII should call his office.  Opportunities abound here for men of his energy and vision. Opportunities for his kind abound for a simple reason: we are cowards.
I include myself in this. A decade ago, when I was freshly energized in the faith, I saw a teenage boy, no more than sixteen, looking through the condom section at the pharmacy with his girlfriend. He picked a package up and purchased it. I watched. I said nothing. A few months later, I saw a couple of young adults from the local
university walking hand-in-hand to the Planned Parenthood clinic a block away. I knew where they were going. I let them walk by me. I watched. I said nothing. I am a coward. The priests described above are cowards. The bishops described above are cowards. We are cowards. Spineless, craven, lily-livered, yellow cowards, too afraid of our own shadow and public perceptions to accept the
crucifixion we are consecrated to live out. When I read of Christ’s betrayal, I don’t have to wonder what Judas was thinking. I look in the mirror, I look at most of our bishops and priests, and I see Judas
rationalizing it all away. I have a lot of empathy for Judas when I am playing his part. I am disgusted beyond measure when I see my priests and bishops play the part.  Peter and Judas both betrayed Christ. Scripture explicitly says Judas repented (Matt 27:3), but of Peter, Scripture says only that he wept bitterly (Luke 22:62). We do neither.
The American priests and bishops who do not fight for the Faith have a name for their course of action. It is “collegiality.” They argue that public unity is of the utmost importance, one bishop should not shame another bishop by acting in a way that implies laxity on the part of the other bishop.
This argument would be a remarkable discovery to most of the saints.
Take Saint Athanasius, for instance. During the Arian heresy, there were only two bishops in all of Christendom who were not heretics: Athanasius and the Pope. The Arians said Christ was not really God.
Athanasius disagreed.
In fact, the man was a public embarrassment. The emperor found him most troublesome. So did all the heretics who occupied various Catholic bishoprics. At their urging, he exiled Athanasius. The people
demanded their beloved truth-teller back. The emperor relented. Athanasius came back. He took up where he left off. The emperor exiled him again. The cycle repeated. In fact, the cycle repeated and repeated and repeated. Three different emperors exiled Athanasius a total of five different times, all because the man refused to SHUT UP.
Funny thing, that. The emperors didn’t realize Athanasius was just being collegial. You see, collegiality means unity, and it is only possible to have unity in the truth. Athanasius was speaking the truth. Thus, although virtually every bishop and every public official unanimously agreed that Athanasius should shut the heaven up, all of these bishops were breaking Catholic collegiality. It was Athanasius, the Truth-Teller, who was being collegial. Why does this situation resonate so strongly today?
You could look at Athanasius alone against the world and get the mistaken impression that he was alone in the college of bishops. He wasn’t. He had in company with him all the bishops who had ever or would ever keep Faith. Remember, the Catholic Church and Chicago have one thing in common: the dead always get a vote. Athanasius had a voting majority according to the rules of the Church. With the democracy of the dead on his side, he swept the election.
Remember Athanasius. Compare his condition to ours. Ours is not the first or the worst the Church has seen. It is not even the first set of heresies that the United States bishops have indulged in. Remember the recent column on slavery? Remember how the Church railed against slavery throughout her long life? The Church taught against it, but some individual Catholics didn’t. Among the many individual Catholics in Church history, both lay and consecrated, priest and bishop, who personally failed to proclaim the Church’s eternal teaching, among these men who owned slaves or defended slavery, stands a large number of American bishops. The bishops of the United States, in the years prior to the American Civil War, taught nearly continuous error on the issue of slavery. With a few exceptions, they kept insisting that only trade in slaves was un-Christian, that owning them was perfectly acceptable. The American bishops were, on this point, material heretics. As the vehement anti-Catholic, Abraham Lincoln, pointed out, America would pay for every drop of blood spilled because of that most pernicious heresy. We did. The Spirit blows where He will. Anti-Catholics frequently demonstrate this simply by being publicly right on some issue that the local Catholic community studiously ignores. Here’s another example. Anti-Catholics often get upset with the fact that Catholics call priests
“Father”. Now, we have good Scriptural reason to do this, and if this were another column, we might demonstrate those reasons in compelling detail, but let’s leave that for another day. Today, let’s just focus on the word “father” and all that the word implies.
My brother-in-law, a good Catholic father with eight children (seven outside, one inside), recently made a penetrating observation. Every day, every one of his children cry. Every child cries every day until the age of at least seven or eight. Every child. Every day.
Tears, weeping, moaning, gnashing of teeth (whoever has children that do not grind their teeth in the night is blessed beyond measure), the piteous wailing against the rank injustices perpetrated by parents upon innocent waifs who DON’T want to eat their vegetables, who DON’T want to share, who DON’T want to go to bed now, and who MUST have that cookie lest death overtake them and they die unindulged: these cries permeate the life of a father, the life of a mother, the life of a parent. Every child cries every day. If there are no tears, the father isn’t doing his job.
But, our father stops teaching the truth because he doesn’t want to listen to the angry, wailing phone calls. Our father reinstates the material heretic because his father, the bishop, throws a tantrum. We children, the laity, are reduced to chastising each other because we follow our fathers’ example, the example of bishops who lament Leon Panetta’s public politics while simultaneously honoring him with the authority to officially review their actions.
We should chastise each other for following the example of bishops like this, of “fathers” like this. Sometimes, our priests, our bishops are heretics. And sometimes, they are cowards. I am the occasional father to three. I am not always a father. Why not? Because you can’t be a father and be a coward. As long as fathers are cowards, children are orphans. And, God forgive me, I am too often a coward.
St. Athanasius, pray for us fathers.
Posted by Steve Kellmeyer at 4:38 PM 0 comments Links to this post

A copy will be posted on Non-Faithful Catholic Schools...they are as much to blame as anyone.

Monday, December 19, 2011

"Missing The Point". A perspective on Notre Dame by The Sycamore Group.

As we very rapidly approach Christmas, the Birth of Our Lord, William Dempsey of The Sycamore Group has provided us with the latest edition of their newsletter...very apropos for the end of the year.  Please feel free to comment on the Bulletin and go to their website and help if you can.  Thank You and God Bless you all.

Jesus Is Lord!
Tim M

Missing The Point

SOUTH BEND, IN — In a recent Irish Rover article, Father Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., professor of history at Notre Dame, former chairman of the department, and president of Notre Dame Faculty for Life, describes why “there is serious reason to believe” that the Chairman of the University’s Board of Trustees, Richard C. Notebaert, “is ill-suited to this important role.”
The question Father raises is of surpassing importance.
As Dr. John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame's Institute for Church Life, recently declared in connection with a seminar for executives in Catholic higher education that he organized:
Trustees of Catholic colleges and universities have a fiduciary responsibility for the Catholic character, identity, and mission of their institutions.
We have repeatedly pointed out that all those in governance at Notre Dame — the Board, the Fellows, and the Administration — are in grave default of this responsibility. Notre Dame’s Statutes of the University specify that its “essential character as a Catholic institution of higher learning shall at all times be maintained,” and its Mission Statement declares that its “Catholic identity depends upon the continuing presence of a preponderant number of Catholic intellectuals” on its faculty. As we have shown, the faculty no longer meets that test.
Accordingly, the board’s fiduciary obligation is to take whatever actions are necessary to insure the restoration of a faculty majority of committed Catholics.
It has not done so. Rather, successive boards have stood by watching as Catholic faculty representation has plummeted during the University’s quest for secular acclaim.
As board chairman, Mr. Notebaert’s fiduciary duty to remedy this situation is especially heavy. The Notre Dame board does not mirror the structure of boards expected to govern. It is too large — nearly 50 members compared with, e.g., eight for Apple, 12 for Verizon, and 16 for General Electric — and meets only three times a year. The members, accordingly, inevitably depend heavily on the Chairman and his close associates.
Let us see, then, what Father Miscamble tells us about Chairman Notebaert. Since we only touch upon highlights, we urge upon you his full article, Mr. Notebaert, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, and the future of Notre Dame.
Father Miscamble begins with a laudatory account of Mr. Notebaert’s “notable corporate experience” and his and his wife’s “generous capacity for giving” to worthy organizations, including the University and the Congregation of Holy Cross.
Observing, however, that Mr. Notebaert “is neither a Notre Dame alumnus nor has he had any significant prior experience in Catholic higher education,” Father Miscamble examines the reasons for believing that he “evidently does not possess a firm grasp on the identity and mission of Notre Dame as a Catholic university.” Father focuses principally upon Mr. Notebaert’s role in the lamentable Martino and Obama affairs.
As Father Miscamble summarizes the Martino matter (see our bulletins Just Stop Talking and Beating Around the Bush) Ms. Martino was appointed to the board despite her substantial contributions to pro-abortion organizations. When these incriminating facts were unearthed and publicized (by The Cardinal Newman Society, Bill McGurn (ND’80) of the Wall Street Journal, and Sycamore Trust), Ms. Martino resigned; but Mr. Notebaert vigorously defended the appointment throughout, “seem[ing] to supplant the University president” and “appear[ing] not to understand the damage that an appointment like this would do to Notre Dame’s standing as a Catholic university.”
What was especially disquieting was what Father Miscamble refers to as Mr. Notebaert’s “quite misleading statement on the matter” and his failure to apologize for his “apparent dissembling.”
Father is charitable in not describing this in detail. But we have done so in the “Cover-up” section of a prior bulletin, as has Mr. McGurn in his two articles, Notre Dame's Chairman of the Board and Notre Dame and EMILY'S List.
In brief, while the main charge against Ms. Martino rested upon her contributions to Emily’s List, a single-purpose and powerful pro-abortion organization, Mr. Notebaert tried to persuade the Board that Ms. Martino didn’t realize the organizations to which she contributed supported abortion by describing only multiple-purpose organizations and omitting any reference to Emily’s List.

Regrettably, Father Jenkins then followed suit even in responding to questions referring explicitly to Emily’s List.
As Mr. McGurn wrote:
What does it say about Notre Dame’s chairman of the board and its priest-president that they would send out the dissembling e-mails they have?...And what does it say about [Mr. Notebaert’s] view of the intelligence of the Notre Dame board that he would put out something so dissembling?
As to the calamitous Obama affair, Father Miscamble draws attention to Mr. Notebaert’s unyielding response to Bishop John M. D’Arcy’s America article in which the bishop explained his and other bishops’ criticism of Notre Dame. (Eighty-three cardinals and bishops condemned Notre Dame’s action.)
Mr. Notebaert, Father writes,
paid no attention to the damage that the Obama invitation inflicted on Notre Dame’s standing in the broad Catholic community and he breezed past any serious consideration of the relationship between Notre Dame and the Catholic Church.
Most tellingly, as Father notes, Mr. Notebaert “ended...with an apparent endorsement of the Land O’Lakes statement,” presumably in response to Bishop D’Arcy’s question in his America article whether the “guiding light” for schools like Notre Dame is to be Land O’Lakes or Pope John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
Father Miscamble closes with the same question:
Does Mr. Notebaert hold that the Land O’Lakes Statement, with its strictures for institutional autonomy from the Church and the aping of our supposed secular peers, should guide Notre Dame into the future? Is this the vision he puts before the future leaders of Notre Dame?
The best answer would be Board action requiring the establishment of a hiring policy designed to insure the ultimate restoration of a majority of committed Catholics to the faculty. Only then will the board redeem itself and discharge its solemn duty to this great university, its founders, those priests and faculty and others who have nourished its Catholic identity over the years, its alumni and donors and parents and students, and the Church.
  • Roadmap for Catholic students. As we have often said, a discriminating student can still obtain an outstanding Catholic education at Notre Dame, and many do. The challenge is to know which professors and courses to choose.
There are now two valuable aids provided by two fine student organizations: The Irish Rover has published a list and description of recommended professors, and the Orestes Brownson Council has established a program under which upperclassmen will “aid students in seeking a truly Catholic education.”
  • Faculty and Department Right to Life Representation. The Irish Rover article also included a list of faculty members of the Faculty for Life (UFL) organization as well as the departments who are not represented by any UFL members. While the list surely does not include all pro-life faculty, it is nevertheless worth noting that there are a number of departments with no UFL representation yet. These include, for example, Classics; English; Film, Television & Theatre; Finance; Gender Studies; Journalism, Ethics & Democracy; Peace Studies; Psychology; Theology; and several science and engineering departments.
  • Student Right to Life Videos & Newsletter. The student Right to Life Club now has a YouTube site. Take a few minutes to watch the testimony of these wonderful young men and women. And take another few minutes to subscribe to their newsletter.
  • Archbishop Dolan at Notre Dame. Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan spoke recently at Notre Dame at the inaugural event of a new organization, The ND Human Dignity Project . The Project is situated within the Institute for Church Life and is administered by the office of University Life Initiatives, The Project’s pro-life objectives seem substantially identical to those of the Fund for the Protection of Human Life, the pro-life organization with which readers of our bulletins are familiar, though the Dignity Project’s “human rights” mission is more expansive. It is encouraging to see the Project’s pledge to “welcome partnerships with other institutes, offices, and departments of at the University.”
Obama’s Notre Dame Sting Redux. In an article recounting the Notre Dame/Obama episode, Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami described how President Obama’s subsequent anti-Catholic actions showed how “Notre Dame’s leadership” was “played by the President” – a subject we also have recently examined. (In 2009, Archbishop Wenski led a Mass of Reparation for Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama.)

Thursday, December 15, 2011

A Note On Comments...

Lately, we have been getting comments on posts that are not relevant to those Postings, and don't comply with the requirements of a comment worthy of posting. So, here are guidelines to follow:

Comment must relate to the post it has been sent to.

Comment must be in good taste.

Comments made that are mean or mean spirited will not be posted.

Comments that contain vulgarities or foul language will not be considered for posting.

Comments that contain any racial or ethnic slurs will be deleted.  There is a reason we moderate the comments section, and if you read what some have sent, you would understand fully.

And finally, please check for spelling and grammar.  We are not editors and will post it as you write it, so be aware that everyone who reads the post can read your comment.

Thank you for reading and commenting.  We truly do appreciate the time you take to let us know your thoughts...just please put them in the right place and with the proper approach.

Jesus Is Lord!