Archive for November, 2008

“The wife has been on my case to get the Christmas lights up for a couple of weeks. They are up now but for some strange reason, she will not talk to me.”

Comments No Comments »

University of Calgary officials have backed away from a stance that would have seen anti-abortion protesters physically removed, arrested and fined for demonstrating on university property. “This action would elevate the risk of confrontation and give the organization the publicity it is seeking,” the university said yesterday in a prepared statement about the Campus Pro-Life Group and its display of graphic anti-abortion materials.  Six protesters and a number of supporters displayed their graphic billboards on campus yesterday that equate abortion to the Holocaust.  The university asked the Calgary Police Service “to issue the appropriate summonses to the individuals ignoring the notice of trespass or to take other appropriate steps.” Campus Pro-Life spokeswoman Leah Hallman figured thousands of people, including students, saw the displays yesterday.  “I have a lot of people tell me that they disagree with me on the issue of abortion but they support my right to be here,” said Hallman.  “I’ve heard people yell, ‘You have no right to be here.’”  A group of pro-choice students staged a counter-protest, which Hallman said was welcomed by her group.  University security guards told protesting anti-abortionists to turn the signs around, and warned that if the signs were not turned around, security will ask the group to leave. If they were refused, they were told they would be charged with trespassing. Neither threat, however, was carried out by the university. The protesters are slated to be back today at the same location. (Source)

Comments 4 Comments »

CALGARY, Alberta, November 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite opposition from the University of Calgary, Campus Pro-Life has continued its second day of displaying signs for the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on the campus, in defiance of threats of arrest, fines and civil action by university officials.U of C administration yesterday issued a statement that said, “Earlier today University of Calgary Campus Security formally advised seven members of the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) group that they were trespassing on university property. The CPL members were asked to leave campus,” and “This afternoon, the University asked the Calgary Police Service to issue the appropriate summonses to the individuals ignoring the notice of trespass or to take other appropriate steps to enforce the directive.”

Campus Pro-Life held a press conference this morning in which they asked university officials to clarify the grounds on which they threatened the students with trespassing on their own campus: “On several occasions, CPL has specifically asked the University to indicate which by-laws, policies, regulations or statutory provisions it relies on as authority for being able to censor the peaceful expression of an opinion on campus.

“CPL has not received a response from the university to these queries, which again confirms that the university’s censorship demands have no basis in law, and should therefore not be enforced by Calgary Police.

“In short, the university’s attempted censorship is illegal, which is why Campus Pro-Life students have refused to comply with this censorship.”

A CPL press release today pointed out that other “graphic” displays currently on campus were not being prohibited by the university administration: “Other protesters were on campus yesterday, most notably activists displaying large, graphic photographs of torture perpetrated by the Chinese government on adherents of Falun Gong.

“Campus Security did not serve these protesters the ‘Notice’ indicating they would have to turn their images inwards or also risk arrest.”

Leah Hallman, president of Campus Pro-Life, called this a double standard, stating, “Those protesting the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners are correctly allowed their right to free expression, but why aren’t we?  It seems U of C is threatening to arrest pro-lifers based on our philosophical position. That’s discrimination.”

A poll conducted by CBC Calgary which asked, “Is the Pro-Life Club’s anti-abortion display appropriate for the University of Calgary campus?” found that a majority – 54% to 46% – were in favor of the GAP display being allowed on campus without harassment from the administration.

To contact the University of Calgary with your opinion:

Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4

Phone: (403) 220-5460
Fax: (403) 289-6800
Email: president@ucalgary.ca

Sent by E-Mail

November 28, 2008

Dear Mr. Weingarten,

I read a news report of the decision by the University of Calgary to attempt to stifle free speech on the university’s grounds.  I’m not sure how you would be able to explain fining or even arresting your own university students for exercising what is guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I’m sure it will make for amusing news and publicity, although I do not believe it would be a positive impression for Canadians to regard your university as an institution which is at the forefront – not of free and rigorous debate – but of jackboot censorship.

Have you no shame in your university’s conduct?  Is your administration’s position on the issue of abortion so weak, so absurd, so lame that you must resort to the tactics employed by a fascist state rather than a western university? 

Yours truly,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United

Comments 1 Comment »

Amazing short drama film which links up some nasty and embarrassing eras in human history with our current abomination of abortion.

First rate flick. Click here to see it.

Sadly, as we discovered during the 40 Days for Life that ended earlier this month, unlike in this movie, the guy doesn’t run upstairs to save his partner or his unborn child….but maybe things are changing and men will learn to be men again….

UPDATE 

November 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The RED One has been described as the “Lamborghini” of digital film cameras; shooting in 4k resolution with a dynamic range close to that of traditional cameras, the RED prices at about $25,000, with all the necessary gadgets. And so, when a rented RED One was dropped on the second day of shooting the powerful pro-life short-film “Volition,” 22-year-old director Tim Morgan, and his younger brother and collaborator, Matthew, thought the game was up.

“At that point we thought we had to throw in the towel, because there was no way we could continue filming that day,” Tim Morgan told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview.  And with only three days to shoot scenes in three different locations depicting three different historical periods, the film was already on a tight, if not impossible, schedule. It was beginning to look as if Volition was not meant to be after all….Read the rest here.

Comments No Comments »

The twentieth century has been a battleground on which a number of socio-political ideologies have sought to control and subjugate the human race. In the political realm, Communism sought to eliminate the distinction between the “proletariat” and “bourgeoisie” classes through total State control of private industry. This resulted in separating the fruit of man’s work from the enjoyment of that fruit. And because of its atheistic ideology, not only did Communism seek to separate man from God, but it also provided the foundation for the destruction of the family. In 1847, Frederic Engels wrote the Principles of Communism which became, arguably, the defining document for the communist movement. In that paper, in answering a question on the influence of communist society on the family, he prophetically wrote:

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage — the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents. (21)

Engels’ propagnda sought to separate the marital union from its divine conception in favour of a mere utilitarian ideal, devoid of any moral underpinnings. Indeed, his observation that Communism would reduce marriage into a “purely private matter” between citizens has been tragically accurate. Such a “purely private matter” has found its zenith with the legalization and widespread acceptance of same-sex “marriage”. Russia, as Our Lady prophetically warned at Fatima in 1917, would spread its Godless and immoral errors throughout the world. Today, while Communism’s government structure and economics may have collapsed as a result of the Cold War, its immoral tenets have infiltrated the West and conquered it. The devil is, after all, quite prepared to jettison the trappings of political and economic systems provided, of course, that the immorality fostered under those systems is allowed to flourish elsewhere.

By capitalizing on the divisive effects of original sin between the spouses, Engels was able to create a “foundation of oppression” which later would serve as the rallying cry for radical feminism in the twentieth century.

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period…The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. (Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, II, 4)

Precisely because of Engels’ successful association of marriage with oppression, Communism and its amoral adherents in the West were successful in painting the Catholic Church as “backward” and “oppressive” because of Her defense of marriage and, in particular, the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility and inherent goodness of it. In the past few decades, this idea of the Catholic Church being oppressive toward women has been further advanced by the new Communism in the West, otherwise identified through radical feminism. The adherents to this atheistic ideology drove the allegations of female oppression far beyond even marriage. Issues such as contraception, abortion, divorce, and women priests – and the Church’s opposition to these ideas – further helped solidify feminism’s impression that the Catholic Church oppresses women. Oppression, as defined by radical feminists, is a restriction on anything which may impede either their exercise of sexual license or their march to destroy any roles reserved on the basis of gender. Yet, irrespective of the morality of these current issues, it is quite clear that the Catholic Church has been the one of the greatest liberators of women in history. Indeed, the clamor to paint the Church as an oppressor has no real historical basis. Like the Inquisition and the Crusades, the popular media in the West have chosen to distort history on this issue and thereby further Communism’s persecution and attack on the Catholic Church. As with all historical questions, the Catholic Church can be easily vindicated after an investigation into the historical record.

There are a number of areas where the Church has defended the dignity of women. For instance, the Church ended the practice of stoning women to death for committing adultery and other such offenses, which was the prescribed custom under the Mosaic Law. Because of Jesus’ example, however, the Church did not do this with an adulteress, but respected her as a human being and called her to repentance. And this was merely a subset of the fact that Christianity regarded women as full human persons, and not as mere property to be used by selfish men, or, within the context of Communism, by the State. Before the advent of Christianity, of course, a woman held the role of an object in society – first owned by her parents, and then owned by her husband. But, Christianity recognized a deeper and truer dimension to a woman’s identity. For example, Christianity, prescribed that husbands were not merely to “own” their wives, but had to love their wives “as they loved their own bodies,” and to lay down their lives for their wives, even as Christ loved and died for the Church (Cf. Eph. 5). This was a revolutionary concept which simply did not exist before the time of Christianity; and it gave women rights, not only in Christianity, but in society in general. And why? Because it declared that women were full persons, to whom men had an intrinsic moral obligation. In Christ’s time, therefore, the Church taught against the prevailing attitude that saw women as mere objects for a man’s fulfillment. And this opposition to the debasement of women remained firm right up to the advent of Communism. Indeed, as the destructive political turmoil gripped the twentieth century, the Church did not waiver but consistently reminded us that Communism did not represent a victory for women but merely shifted the context of domination from ownership by men to ownership by the State.

And, indeed, as part of authentic emancipation, Christianity recognized that women had souls. Before the advent of Christianity, this was seriously debated in both Judaism and in Platonic Greek philosophy, the latter even having an influence on the Greek Christian fathers. However, both the witness of Scripture (which depicts women as among the most faithful and courageous of Jesus’ disciples) and that of St. Augustine, who argues brilliantly in defense of a woman’s spiritual nature, any lingering doubt that women had souls (that they were full and equal human persons with men) was driven out of the mindset of the Church. But while the Church was driving out the subjugation of women to men by insisting that both had equal dignity before God, the Communist State was busy stripping that dignity from both men and women by insisting that there was no intrinsic dignity in either of them. Since child bearing and Christian motherhood were not palpably seen as assets to the Communist State, it was essentially marginalized and ostracized. Not only was Communist Russia therefore aborting at an alarming rate – far surpassing all other nations in the world, the State was also destroying the feminine mystique inherent in all women. By effectively forcing them into roles and workplaces previously held by men, women lost much of their unique sense of nurturing, warmth, and receptivity. They became more like men as they sought to liberate themselves from their own femininity. Sadly their liberation came at their own expense as they sought to unsuccessfully muzzle the feminine consciousness within them. The result has been sadness, loneliness, and emptiness.

Unlike male-dominated Communism, the Catholic Church also recognizes that the greatest Christian, indeed the greatest human being, who ever lived is, not a man, but a woman – Jesus’ mother Mary, who, unlike any man (with the exception of Jesus, of course, but He was a divine Person possessing a human nature) was free from the weakness and damage of original sin, and possessed mental and spiritual faculties that were superior to the rest of sinful humanity, including, suffice it to say, all men. Thus, Mary is our paragon, and the model for ALL Christians, both women and men, to follow. She defines what being a Christian is. She is our example; and her example hammers home the fact that, in Christianity, the proper spiritual approach of both women and men to Christ must be a female; that is, a receptive and cooperative approach. This is why the Church is viewed as Jesus’ bride. In fact, the charges of Catholics being “oppressors” of women become absurd since we believe that salvation (i.e. Jesus Christ) literally comes through a woman!

Aside from Mary, from its earliest days, Christianity also celebrated the heroic achievements of saintly women who testified to the truth of the Faith, and whose witness arguably out-performed and out-numbered that of common men. For example, in the list of martyred saints in the Roman Liturgy, we find the names of Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, and Anastasia – all of whom were celebrated heroes of the early Church, and who enjoyed the devotion of both Christian men as well as women. And this tradition certainly did not stop with the ancient Church. Indeed, the Church continued to celebrate the witness of great female saints and to raise them up as examples for all Christians. Thus, we have a myriad of additional women saints like Catherine of Alexandria, Eudoxia, Monica, Sabina, Blandina, Clotilda, Bridget of Ireland, Ethelrieda, Dymphna, Winnefred, Clare of Assisi, Rita of Cascia, Catherine of Sienna, Clare of Montefalco, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, Catherine Labore, Bernadette of Lourdes, Edith Stein. The list is seemingly endless. This devotion and appreciation for the spiritual achievements of women does not stop there. Indeed, the Catholic Church has also formally proclaimed numerous female saints to be “Doctors of the Church” – a distinguished title held by only the most brilliant of spiritual thinkers. Doctors of the Church, of course, set the example for us in terms of explaining and clarifying aspects of Catholic theology. Among the female Catholic Doctors of the Church are Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux, all of whom produced works which are almost essential to modern Catholic spirituality. The Church recognizes and celebrates this fact.

In opposition to this, Communism sought to blur the distinction between men and women by assigning them identical roles in society in order to allow women “equal rights” with men. But, as political commentator, Sam Vaknin, once wrote in his article, Women in Transition: From post-feminism to past femininity, (Jan.15. 2001), “in reality, it was a gender-neutral hell. Women under Communism were, indeed, encouraged to participate in the labour force. An array of conveniences facilitated their participation: daycare centres, kindergarten, day-long schools and abortion clinics, to name a few. Reality was much drearier. Women, however mettlesome, groaned under the ‘triple burden’ of work, marital expectations cum childrearing chores and party activism. They succumbed to the lure and demands of the (stressful and boastful) image of the Communist ‘super-woman’…But the ‘underslippers’ (as brow-beated Czech men are disparagingly self-labeled) still had the upper hand. In short, women were now subjected to an onerous double patriarchy, both private and public (the latter propagated by the party and the state). It is not that they did not value the independence, status, social interaction and support networks that their jobs afforded them. But they resented the lack of choice (employment was obligatory) and the parasitic rule of their often useless husbands.” Unlike Christianity which sought to respect, develop, and nurture not only the differences between individuals but sexes as well, including their respective roles, atheistic Communism viewed the female sex as merely another instrument of production in service to the State.

Before our extolling of the Blessed Mother and female saints is dismissed (as radical feminism tends to do) as the Church merely “giving a gold star” to the “good little girls” in its ranks, consider, if you will, any comparable examples from other world religions. Ah! But, there is the rub, because, there aren’t any! Where, for example, are all the celebrated names of saintly or spiritually advanced women in Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion anywhere? Indeed, one would be hard pressed to name even four or five Jewish or Buddhist female saints, and totally unable to name any female spiritual geniuses. And, once this is appreciated, the revolutionary nature of Catholic Christianity’s approach to women can vividly be seen. Under Communism, while women had their quota in parliament and climbed to the top of some professions, many positions were also simply inaccessible to them. Indeed, where were all of the major women political leaders and thinkers within Communism? After seven decades of Communist rule, can we remember even one woman who had a significant part to play in that political system? Even by its own standards of “equal rights” for women, can Communism (and by extension, radical feminism) be considered even remotely as successful as the Catholic Church has been in this regard?

Continuing with our list of other specific rights that modern women can thank the Catholic Church for, there is also the privilege of a woman having her own name. In Roman society, before the advent of Christianity, a woman simply did not possess a formal name of her own (a name that could be used on legal documents, etc.), but, in her early years, she merely held a female version of her father’s name. Once she was married, she changed her formal name to a female version of her husband’s name. Her personal identity, therefore, was always totally dependent on the primary male figure in her life. For example, if a Roman woman was the daughter of a man named “Julius”, her formal name (and that of all of her sisters too) would be “Julia.” Then, if she married a man named “Marcus”, her named would be formally changed to “Marcia.” However, in Christian society, because a new name was always taken at Baptism, by both men and women, women in the Church possessed their own names; and, once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, this practiced eventually carried over into the general scope of society. This is why women have their own exclusive names today, not being tied intrinsically to the identity of their fathers or husbands. How is that for women’s liberation?! Communism, on the other hand, was successful in blurring the distinctions between men and women and expunging the unique personality that each contributes to the human family. As the West accepted the notion that men and women served as mere functional instruments for the State, the masculine and feminine qualities inherent in the sexes became blunted and suppressed. In 1937, Pope Pius XI warned us of the pernicious assault that Communism would have on the West. He called it “a pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labor”. “Communism”, he wrote, “strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system…Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right. (Divini Redemptoris,10-11)

But lest our detractors insist on the Church “chaining” women to the matrimonial bond, it was the Church who supplied women with the choice to either marry or not. Indeed, from its earliest days, the Church gave any woman in its society the option to live a celibate life; and, since they would not have a husband, the Church financially supported these women if they chose to live such celibate lives. This eventually developed into the female monastic tradition, whereby women were free to devote their lives to both spiritual and intellectual pursuits – something that they would otherwise be unable to do within the normal scope of society, where women were expected to marry, keep homes, and raise children. In short, the Church was responsible for creating the first “career women” – monastic “islands” in an otherwise male dominated society, where women were permitted and encouraged to become theologians, philosophers, chemists, and physicians. Indeed, where else in the world, during ancient times or throughout the Middle Ages, could a woman pursue such things? Within the context of monastic life, some women became Abbesses; that is, heads of both local and international religious communities. As such, they were responsible, for not only maintaining the spiritual rule of their society, but for controlling and managing vast estates and other property that was literally worth millions in terms of modern dollars. In this, as early as the 6th Century, women wielded administrative and institutional authority comparable to that of a modern CEO of a Fortune 500 company! And so, again, where else, aside from the Catholic Church at the time, do we see women holding such levels of power and influence in society? Perhaps if one were a secular queen or duchess, this could be achieved, but that, of course, was based on inheritance or marriage, whereas an Abbess or Mother Superior might even come from the lower classes, and attained her position based on personal ability and intelligence, not on her family’s wealth or her desirability as a mate.

In terms of unwed mothers, the Church also provided unprecedented advantages for women there in terms of social care. Before the days of Christianity, an unwed mother was completely on her own. However, the Church would care for such women and their children, giving them financial support. In fact, Christian society also considered the idea of bastard children disgraceful, and so it basically obliged a man to either marry his mistress (thereby giving her legitimacy and social rights) or to, at the very least, acknowledge and financially support his illegitimate children. So, we would have no sense of modern “child support” without the influence and moral leadership of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Communism’s solution to crisis pregnancies, which the West has gleefully adopted, was to offer abortion to women. Russia is currently estimated to have nearly 13 terminations for every 10 live births, and the highest abortion rate in Europe after Romania. One Russian woman, who has had seven abortions, her “emancipation procedure” this way: “You stand in line before the door of the operating room, seven or eight of you, waiting to be taken in. The clinic’s staff is too busy to do anything but operate, so as each woman who’s finished staggers out you take turns getting out of line for a few minutes, just to help her get to the resting room down the hall. Then it’s your turn, and you go into a hall splattered with blood where two doctors are aborting seven or eight women at the same time; they’re usually very rough and rude, shouting at you about keeping your legs wide open…if you’re lucky they give you a little sedative, mostly Valium. Then it’s your turn to stagger out to the resting room, where you’re not allowed to spend more than two hours because the production line, you see, is always very busy” (Gray, Francine du Plessix, (1989) Soviet Women Walking the Tightrope. Doubleday, New York, p.19). This woman estimates that, by the end of her child bearing years, she will have undergone fourteen abortions, which she believes to be the national average. She knows women who have had twenty-five abortions.

In the Middle East, Christian bishops forbad native communities (such as the Nabathaean Arabs) from circumcising their daughters, seeing it as an unnecessary and inhumane thing to do. The custom, of course, was later resurrected under Islam. However, in Arab and African countries where female circumcision is practiced today, it is still rejected and condemned by the ancient Christian communities there (e.g. the Copts of Egypt, the Abbyssian Christians of Ethiopia, etc.). In this, abuse of women in any intentional form came to be regarded as cowardly and disgraceful; and so men were no longer permitted to strike their wives or daughters, or to verbally abuse them. Otherwise, these men would receive condemnation from the Church and from society in general – another revolutionary concept which is still a driving factor in the defense of women’s rights today. Yet, today’s pop apologists for women’s liberation have nothing to be proud of. Since jettisoning its Judeo-Christian roots, western society has reached nearly epidemic proportions regarding domestic violence. And the first daughter of Communism herself, Russia, is no better. According to the Executive Director of the National Violence Prevention Center, it is estimated that 60 percent of the women murdered in Russia every year are killed by their husbands. Domestic violence occurs in 25 percent of Russian families. Yet it is rarely discussed. She reports that approximately 14,000 women die each year as a result of spousal abuse, while 3,000 women retaliate and kill their husbands.

Yet while Communism was responsible in removing any remaining vestiges of respect accorded to women by men, it is the Catholic Church today which still insists on the proper respect and deference be given to women. After all, the Christian Church was also responsible for the creation of chivalry, which is the origin of Western society’s respect for, and deference to, women. In contrast to Islam, this difference was quite pronounced. Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East scholar, once remarked that the status of women is the single most profound difference between Christian and Muslim civilization. He noted that early Muslim visitors to Europe spoke with astonishment, often with horror of the incredible freedom and deference shown to Western women. In 1665, for instance, right at the peak of Muslim conquest in Europe, a Turkish writer and diplomat, Evliya Celebi, visited Vienna. In his report, he wrote:

“In this country I saw a most extraordinary spectacle. Whenever the emperor meets a woman in the street, if he is riding, he brings his horse to a standstill and lets her pass. If the emperor is on foot and meets a woman, he stands in a posture of politeness. The woman greets the emperor, who then takes his hat off his head to show respect for the woman. After the woman has passed, the emperor continues on his way. In this country and in general in the land of the [Christians], women have the main say. They are honored and respected out of love for Mother Mary.”

As the aforementioned examples conclusively show, therefore, it is clear that the Catholic Church is not the oppressor of women but rather its authentic liberator. The true oppressor of women is Communism and its harlot-daughter, Radical Feminism. In 1920, Russia’s law on abortion became one of the most barbaric in the world as Vladimir Lenin gave Russia divorce and abortion on demand. Since then, Russia and the world have been reaping the carnage of this hell-sent ideology. While Communism no longer has the political and economic infrastructure to attack the Church, it has been successful in infiltrating Western culture and working within its socio-political institutions to undermine Catholic influence. Today, it merely operates under a different name and peddles the culture of death and its anti-Catholicism within a capitalist system. Now and in the future, the Church and her children must be vigilant and militant in defending Her historical record against the calumny of radical feminism – a immoral movement whose genesis comes from atheistic Communism. Whatever the form of attack or the charge being levied against our holy faith, Catholics must become educated and rise to the challenge.

John Pacheco and Mark Bonocore

Comments 5 Comments »

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. – G. K. Chesterton (The Superstition of Divorce)
 

Comments No Comments »

As proud parents of seven children, my wife and I are often amazed at the comments we receive when people discover the size of our family. Because it is hard to stand out in this day and age, more traditional rebellious behaviors have become mainstream, while traditional family activities and attitudes have become counter-cultural.

Everybody’s A Critic

This means that if you are a man who stays married to one woman, has more than two children, and attends Church on a regular basis, people treat you as if you are from another planet. The big difference between the old rebels and the new rebels, however, is that faithful Catholics are rebels with a cause. The cause, in our case, is to pass the gospel message on to our children and to set a living example of authentic faith so that the Church can become strong once again.

As a father of so many, one of the most popular topics of conversations with friends, co-workers, and even relatives concerns my family’s size. You would think that after the third or fourth child, family and friends would stop expressing shock and disbelief after learning about another pregnancy. Most of the time, however, the opposite reaction occurs. It seems that they are just waiting for my wife and me to make the big announcement: “Well, that’s it. We are ‘done’. Now we can have our life back.”

How times have changed. Two generations ago, the reaction would have been quite different. Instead of expressing shock and horror at the arrival of the sixth child, a Catholic friend might instead say, “And to think that you still have ten more child-bearing years left” or “Well, you’re halfway there.” Sadly, though, all too often the remarks my family receives are sarcastic, cynical, or just plain insulting. The following list is a sample of some of the most common remarks we sometimes hear along with a few of my imagined, but unspoken comebacks:

• “Are these all yours?” (Is this all you have?)• “I don’t know how you do it.” (Did you miss biology class?)• “I can barely handle one child.” (That’s because you need to grow up, dear.)

• “I wanted more but my husband got fixed.” (Actually, your husband is broken and he needs to be fixed.)

• “We tried NFP but it didn’t work for us.” (What part of “no” didn’t he understand?)

• “Are you done yet?” (Have you begun yet?)

• “So how many children do you want to have?” (We haven’t learned to count that high yet.)

• “You’re crazy!” (You’re lazy!)• “Just what do you two do in that bedroom anyway?” (Have productive sex which is more than you can say)• “Have you two ever heard of birth control?” (Yes. Have you ever heard of a retirement home with no prospect of visitors?)

• “You have almost got enough for a baseball team.” (You almost have enough for a tennis match.)

• “Is your wife pregnant yet?” (No, but I’m sure you’ll let us know)

• “Don’t you two have a TV?” (Yes but we’re having too much sex to be bothered watching it.)

• “I didn’t know you ran a daycare facility!” (Not a problem. We’re investing in future income earners for our pensions. How’s your retirement planning coming?)

While most of these comments are somewhat irritating, I must always remind myself that the people expressing these thoughts are being challenged with the Gospel of Life through the mere presence of my large family. A number of these incidences have remained with me, and a few of them bear relating here.

A Sideshow on Wheels

One memorable episode occurred when the seven of us walked through the door of our local McDonald’s restaurant. As my wife struggled to get our newborn daughter out of the car seat, the four older brothers and I entered the restaurant ahead of them. Sitting at a booth by the door was a mother, father and their two young children. As I stood holding the door open, waiting for my wife and my daughter, the children and their parents gave us a long stare. In a very loud voice, one of the boys blurted out, “Mommy, daddy, look at the size of that family.” The other boy then piped up and said, “Look, there are four boys.” As I continued to hold the door, my wife made her way through the door with our daughter. Glancing over at the family, I noticed a look of utter shock on both of the parents’ faces. Their children then went ballistic and I heard them say, “O my God, there are five kids!” In order to avoid making a scene, the parents quickly moved to quiet their children. Being a little embarrassed, my wife and I shuffled our five children to the nearest booth. As I glanced back over my shoulder, I noticed that all four family members were staring at us. My wife later remarked that we had become the topic of conversation for the duration of their meal.

Perhaps in the course of the parents’ conversation about our family’s size, the Holy Spirit used us to plant a seed in their hearts to conceive new life. Indeed, it would be a great grace for them and for our dying culture if the parents thought to themselves, “If they can have more than two children, then why can’t we?” A large family can reawaken the truth of the sanctity of human life which has been smothered by an aggressive anti-life culture. A seemingly innocuous incident such as this provided my family with a great opportunity to evangelize for the Gospel of Life. This particular form of evangelization does not require a lot of words, only mere presence.

Another occasion for evangelization occurred when a co-worker found out that my wife was expecting our sixth child. In the past, he would typically remark, “Well, is that it?” Traditionally, my reaction would have gravitated toward deflecting attention away from the issue by responding in an ambiguous way and quickly changing the topic. Sensing the Holy Spirit’s guidance, this particular incident would be different. Instead of avoiding the issue, I confronted it. I replied, “Well, we always wanted to have six children.” His next question was truly hilarious. “So are you going to get a hysterectomy?” After clarifying that the correct term was “vasectomy,” he added, “Yeah, I mean are you going to get snipped?” At this point I started to get a little hot under the collar. I thought to myself, “Who does this guy think he is? Is it not enough that he obsesses over my family size? Now he wants to know if I am going to neuter myself for good. Has he no shame?!” Instead of my normal polite response, I decided to employ the tactic that these people so often employ on faithful Catholics. I looked him straight in the eye, raised my voice and with a firm sincerity replied, “No, I am not a dog!” I then added, “I can’t think of anything more repulsive. We neuter animals by force, and yet we humans do it by choice. How sick is that!” He then let out an uncomfortable laugh and quickly changed the subject.

Hungry for Children

When women inquire about my family size, I tend to be a little gentler with my responses. Most of the women I know want more children, but societal and economic pressures — through what the Holy Father calls “sinful structures” — plant seeds of doubt in their minds. During my last dentist appointment, for instance, my hygienist asked me about my family. When I told her that we were having our sixth child, she asked, “It is so rare these days for a family to have as many children as you have. May I ask why you have so many?” Now I could have responded in a number of ways, but on this occasion the Holy Spirit inspired me to respond with simplicity and humility. Before I had a chance to even think of a response, these words fell from my mouth: “Because we love them.” A moment of silence followed my response, as if some great truth had been revealed to her. Instead of trying to find an excuse or provide an “intelligent” reason for more children, I had allowed God to guide me to the most effective and authentic response possible. Love of children is why we have more of them. This is the simple truth. We have children because they reflect the love that we have for the Creator. To share in His creative power is awesome because it is to share in an infinite love. When we have children, we participate in the creation of something that never existed before yet will live for all eternity. What a beautiful and awesome gift and responsibility this is!

Our experiences in engaging our culture serve to remind my wife and me just how blessed we are. We are also reminded that our children will likely grow to share our pro-life views and hopefully fill the twilight of our existence with many grandchildren. What our secular society fails to understand is that love never divides — it multiplies.

The future is truly in the hands of large families. As the birth rates in North America and other developed countries continue to plunge, children from large families will fill the gaps left by the families that choose voluntary extinction. “Blessed are the meek”, our Lord says, “for they will inherit the earth” — or, in this case, their children will.

- Chris Beneteau

Comments 4 Comments »

There goes my life.

No. You’ve found life.

Comments No Comments »

GHENT, Belgium, November 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Belgian couple faces possible jail time for having sold their newborn child on eBay and for having registered the child under an assumed name.
 
A Belgium state prosecutor said, “The couple are suspected of registering the birth under a false name, which is an offence. That is to say that the name the baby boy was given was not that of his real mother.” The offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. According to iafrica.com, obtaining an adoption without official authorization, a charge to which the couple may have to answer for the eBay sale, carries a maximum sentence of five years.The pair, who have not been named, are a man 26 and woman aged 24 and are under investigation by police and social services in the town of Ghent after it was revealed that they had offered their second child on eBay to a Dutch couple for an undisclosed sum.

A spokesman for the Belgian prosecutor’s office said the couple had decided not to keep the child because of money problems. The amount paid for the baby has not been disclosed but it was described as a “decent five figure sum” and the Belgian authorities have decided not to remove the baby from his “adoptive” parents. Het Laatse Nieuws reports that the baby was handed over to a couple from the Netherlands in the hospital parking lot shortly after he was born in July. 

While critics are saying that this incident could be the start of the buying and selling of children over the internet, in fact, babies have been appearing on the internet for sale for some time. In May this year, police in Vancouver, British Columbia were called when an online ad was spotted offering to sell a baby girl for Cn. $10,000. The ad said “Must have!!!! $10,000, a new baby girl, healthy and very cute. Can’t afford and unexpected, Looking for a good home, Please call ASAP” and included a cell phone number.

In Salt Lake City in March, Police instigated a search for a baby girl who had been advertised “for sale” on a local online classified listing. The child was listed under “Baby & Children Items” at a cost of US $6,560, police said.

Pro-life analysts have long warned that widespread legalized abortion has triggered a vast cultural shift in western countries from the idea of a child as a gift from God to that of the child as either an insupportable financial burden or a luxury commodity that can be purchased or sold, or, as in the case of artificial reproductive technologies, made to order.

As early as 1986 the Catholic Church was warning that a fundamental shift had occurred in the way children were viewed. That year the Vatican issued a document, titled Donum Vitae (the Gift of Life) signed by the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that warned that the artificial reproductive technologies industry had created a situation in which human beings could be bought and sold.

Calling artificial procreation a set of procedures characterised by a “dynamic of violence and domination,” the document said, “The abortion-mentality which has made this procedure possible…leads, whether one wants it or not, to man’s domination over the life and death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical eugenics.”

“The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, ‘the supreme gift.’”

When a child is subject to the disposable culture of abortion that our society promotes, it devalues human life in general and unborn children in particular.  This is only logical. That’s why we have an increased amount of child abuse and neglect in this culture too. One goes with the other. 

The other logical consequence is, instead of aborting the child on the cheap, you go through with the pregnancy and cash in at the end.  Not a bad pay out, a five figure amount.

Watch for more of this as we go on in the Obama years. 

Abortion has led to human trafficking.  It’s the new slave trade of the 21st century.

Watch for the justification for it in the future too:  “Well, they are going to do it anyway, so let’s make it safe. We should regulate it and then tax it. Just like abortion and porn!  Then everyone wins!”

Comments No Comments »

Keith Martin has reintroduced a private motion’s bill to repeal S. 13(1) of the CHRA and has further called for a full scale investigation by the Justice Committee into the CHRC’s activities.

I think we should consider asking an MP – and Keith Martin looks like the go-to guy right now – to consider being our Parliamentary representative who is responsible for collecting all of the evidence against the CHRC’s illegal, fraudulent, unethical, and immoral practices.

So, in other words, if you have been persecuted or prosecuted by the CHRC and found their techniques to be objectionable and even illegal and you have documented proof of that OR if you, like me, have found some serious fraud and unethical behaviour by CHRC operatives and their satellites in your research and investigation, then it might be a good time to organize it in a logical and coherent manner and submit it to Parliament.

That way, when the Justice Committee is convened, our Parliamentarians have all or most of the evidence before them and can start calling on interested parties to testify.

I think this is a good way to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling right over the CHRC, and it helps focus the Committee’s attention on the meat of the allegations against the CHRC.

I’m sure there will be volumes of evidence submitted so it’s important to get going on this now. 

Comments 1 Comment »

A mother shocked by seeing two half-naked men having sex while out walking the dogs with her daughter was told by police to take a different route in future.

Marie Cragg, 44, spoke of her disgust at the officers’ reaction and said she feared the woodland beauty spot would be turned into a no-go area for ordinary members of the public.

The men seen by Miss Cragg and her 18-year-old daughter Jessica were stripped from the waist down and carried on with their activities even after they knew they had been spotted.

…’They saw me and didn’t care and just carried on. I could have been a childminder with kids. I would rather go past a gang of hoodies  -  they are making the place seedy.’

But Mr Cunningham, who is also a spokesman on homosexual issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, argues that offenders should only be prosecuted as a last resort because of the potential impact on their lives of making their activities public.

Miss Cragg, who also has a 21-year-old daughter and a 15-year-old son with her partner, said police already seemed too tolerant.

It is the second time this year she has caught a pair of gay men having sex in the area, which is near a primary school.

‘When it happened again I just said to Jessica, ‘Oh my God!’,’ she added.

 (Source)

Lighten up, Lady.  It’s all about freedom and sexual identity. And who in their right minds could be against that? Didn’t I see you at the last year’s gay pride parade downtown?  Didn’t you vote for the liberal politician?  Don’t you want to teach your children to be inclusive?

Comments 1 Comment »

Modern Catholic apologetics is often associated with historical questions or scriptural exegesis. Theological questions such as justification, the role of the Bible in the Christian Church, and the nature of Church authority, for instance, remain very common and popular topics today in discussions between Protestants and Catholics.

In the early Church, too, theological battles were very common as competing sides fought over the famous christological and mariological issues of the time. The Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His human and divine natures and wills, the virginity of Mary and her identity as theotokos were all hotly-contested theological controversies fought and won by the Catholic Church.Needless to say, theological controversies among Christians and between Christians and non-Christians will exist until the Second Coming of Christ when they will be, thankfully, settled once and for all. While these disagreements are still very important in the religious realm, their relevance in the current culture war has fundamentally changed.In the past, the attacks on the Catholic Faith came through the aforementioned theological questions. Today, while these attacks still remain — and in some cases have even intensified — they have been upstaged somewhat by a new and pernicious menace. The new heresy, which some are now calling “Genderism,” seeks to recreate man away from his divine origin into a mere human invention.

The war being waged in our modern culture is over this very question. The major issues of today — abortion, contraception, euthanasia, divorce, invitro-fertilization, cloning, stem-cell research, and same-sex “marriage” — all involve, at some fundamental level, a direct attack on the dignity and image of the human person as created by Almighty God. This conflict is particularly heated in the case of so-called “gender-identity” issues in which proponents of radical feminism or gay “marriage” have tried to argue that gender is mutable.

The Church rejects this position as a perversion of God’s revelation concerning man and his nature. The Church teaches that in man, God created one human nature with two distinct and complementary relational expressions of that nature. These expressions, what we know as “male” and “female,” are not merely tangential or incidental characteristics of our human nature, but are intrinsic and fundamental to it.

We know this to be true because this relational expression is reflected in the physiological features of the male and female bodies which, although sharing the same flesh (Cf. Gn 2:23), are nonetheless distinct from one another in their physical appearance. The physiological composition of the male and female bodies — far from being incidental or transitory — is a reflection of a person’s inner psychological nature. A man’s genitalia, for instance, shows him that his human nature is expressed as a male with all of the attendant traits of masculinity which flow from it. The characteristics corresponding to masculinity naturally engender him to assume a certain role in relation to a female who, corresponding to her phsyiology, has a different yet complementary psychology.

The male and female cannot insist on playing the same role in their relationship with one another for the simple reason that their human natures are not precisely the same, at least insofar as the expression of that nature is concerned. It would be analogous to a nut and bolt wanting to fulfill the same function in the operation of a mechanical device. If they both insisted on doing so, the machine would break down. And this is precisely what has happened to marriage in the latter part of the twentieth century. Similarly, gay “marriage” advocates fail to realize that two nuts or two bolts will also fail to work because the intimacy required for success in coupling success demands complementarity, not uniformity.

The clamor for gay “marriage” and the push for the legitimacy of gay sex is rooted in radical feminism’s blurring of the unique and distinct personalities inherent in the male and female sexes. Radical feminism and the “gay rights” agenda are nothing more than two sides of the same coin, much like communism and materialist capitalism are rooted in the same philosophical system which sees man as a mere commodity, either of the state (communism) or of himself or another (capitalism).

As the distinction between men and women becomes more distorted, their traditional roles within the family unit are likewise further confused. With the advent of contraception and the widespread acceptance of sterility, this confusion has logically led to the acceptance of same-sex unions. When women relinquish their fertility and assumed the roles traditionally filled by men, they give up much of what expresses their distinction from men so that, in men’s eyes, they become functionally little different than other men. This has led to the acceptance of homosexuality in popular culture.

In his letter dealing with the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church, Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) stressed the unique and irreplaceable elements of both sexes and notes that being male and female is an immutable expression of the human person. He writes:

Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love. This capacity to love — reflection and image of God who is Love — is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed. (“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World,” [8]

The very capacity to love, the Pope says, is expressed through the “spousal character of the body.” In other words, if masculinity is not tied to the male body or femininity to the female body, as the Church’s opponents claim, then people will discover that their capacity to love will be obscured and gravely wounded. Genderism has sought to create a contradiction between the “spirit” (i.e. the relational expression of sexual differences) and the “flesh” (i.e. physical expression of sexual difference). This false dichtomy between the spirit and the flesh is but another dimension of the first century heresy known as Gnosticism. Instead of declaring flesh “evil” like the early Gnostics did, however, the new Gnostics merely designate the flesh as arbitrary and divorce its masculine or feminine traits from their psychological counterparts.His Holiness also rightly points out that human nature itself cannot be sterile, and because of that, it requires a relational dimension to its existence:

Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam’s life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God’s creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. (Ibid., 6)

The document goes on to further explain that this “relational reality” is not merely a static, detached relationship, but rather a relationship which rises to the level of interdependence: “In the unity of the two,” the Pope writes, “man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ’side by side’ or ‘together,’ but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other’…. The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call” (Ibid., 6).Indeed, this teaching on the relational reality of both sexes being called to exist mutually for the other points to a fundamental truth of the limitation and interdependence of either sex. In its natural expression, man cannot propagate the human race alone. He needs, as the Bible says, a “helpmate.” With this realization, man recognizes that he is limited and finite.  His dependence on his wife is a reminder of his greater reliance on God Himself who is the infinite and unlimited source of life.  In contrast to this, the opposing feminist-gay world view does not believe that both partners exist mutually for the other.  In feminism, a woman is not dependent on a man. She is independent of him and merely relates to a man as she pleases.  She uses him as a commodity to fulfill her base, materialistic pleasures (and he uses her). Similarly, under the homosexual rubric, there is no context of existing “for the other” since the relationship’s physiology does not correspond to this language. In fact, the physiological language of gay sex points in the opposite direction, where the participants are attempting to join two uniform expressions of the same nature, and therefore, on an ontological level, seek to exist for “themselves.” This is why gay relationships are so unstable — because there is no inherent sense of “existing for the other” as there is in a normal heterosexual marriage.According to the Book of Genesis, the human person is revealed to be made in the very image of God: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gn 1:27). In the account of creation, not only does God reveal to us that man’s image is a reflection of the divine essence, but we learn that in creating man, God created one image with two distinct expressions of that image. These two distinct expressions of our human nature are as important to Christian theology as the two natures in Christ’s person. Indeed, the modern attack on these two expressions is a form of gender “Monophysitism” — the sixth-century heresy which sought to reduce Jesus’s two natures to only one. In the same way, radical feminism has sought to blur and even negate the distinction between the male and female expressions in human nature.While feminism began in response to legitimate grievances to promote prospects for equality of women, it has evolved a new theory of the human person in an effort to seek liberation from ”biological determinism.” In its latest stages, it has inspired ideologies which call into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent — what the Pope called “a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”Indeed, the central question of our time concerns authentic human dignity and how it is defined. On the one hand, secular culture views man’s intrinsic nature as malleable and replaceable. The culture’s materialistic and consumerist philosophy has translated the human person into a mere product of consumption. Since the human body itself can be harvested, destroyed, or manipulated to serve selfish and perverse ends, the physical characteristics that are specific to either gender are consequently seen as tentative and optional.

The Church, in opposition to this lethal view, upholds the sanctity and inalienable constitution of the human person and believes that there can be no separation between the physical characteristics of the human body with the associated psychological and spiritual elements of it. In other words, male genitalia must correspond to a male psychology. This is why, as Cardinal, the Pope highlighted the fact that “male and female are thus revealed as belonging ontologically to creation and destined therefore to outlast the present time, evidently in a transfigured form. In this way, they characterize the ‘love that never ends’ (1 Cor 13:8), although the temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient and ordered to a phase of life marked by procreation and death” (Ibid., 12).

In God’s infinite love for us He became “one of us” at His incarnation. This incarnation represents the sacramental dimension which vivifies the teaching that man is created in the image of God. God fulfilled this teaching by showing man that not only would God Himself become man to save him, but also that man’s destiny is to partake in God’s own divine nature (Cf. 2 Pt 1:4). At the moment of the Incarnation, when the divine person of the Son of God assumed a human nature, human nature itself was sanctified. Through baptism we become united mysteriously with Christ’s divine nature. Jesus has therefore united Himself to all men through His incarnation and His baptismal marriage to us, and therefore any attack on man becomes an attack on God Himself.

As the current culture war continues to rage, all of the Church’s efforts to combat the culture of death must be brought forward. To defeat this ominous threat to mankind’s existence, Christians must learn to cooperate with one another despite our theological differences. We must work towards a common “life ethic” which can serve as a unifying beacon of light and a common front against an increasingly darkened and hostile world. When the boat is sinking, there is no time to fight over who is manning the helm. The important thing is to get to work and start bailing.

Comments No Comments »

Nov. 21, 2008 (CWNews.com) – Did Pope Benedict predict the current worldwide financial crisis?

During the past few days dozens of newspapers have run a report suggesting that the Pope had warned about the coming financial meltdown, more than 20 years ago. But more sober analysis shows that the then-Cardinal Ratzinger had something quite different in mind when he made the remarks that are now being cited as a “prophecy.”

The claims that the Pope forecast the collapse of world financial markets originated with a November 20 Bloomberg reportcarrying the provocative headline: “Pope had ‘prophecy of market collapse in 1985.’ The Bloomberg story quoted Italy’s finance minister, Giulio Tremonti, as saying that in an article he wrote in 1985, the future Pontiff made “the prediction that an undisciplined economy would collapse.”

Speaking at Milan’s Catholic University, Tremonti called attention to a paper that Cardinal Ratzinger had delivered at a 1985 seminar on “Market Economy and Ethics.” The future Pope said that a breakdown on moral principles “can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse,” the Italian finance minister recalled.

It was the Bloomberg headline, not Tremonti’s own words, that gave rise to the suggestion that the paper Cardinal Ratzinger delivered in 2005 contained some sort of economic prognostication. Actually the future Pontiff was making a point that should be familiar to anyone with a passing interest in Catholic social teaching; he was insisting that the working of a free-market economic system must be buttressed by the principles of Judeo-Christian morality.

In a sober analysis of the text that the German cardinal delivered at that 1985 seminar, Jordan Ballor of the Acton Institute supplied the relevant quotation from the Ratzinger text:

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.

That statement obviously is not intended as a prediction of particular trends in the world’s financial markets; it is a comment on the close relationship between ethical behavior and social welfare, on how the common good is served when individuals base their actions on consistent moral principles– and undermined when they act selfishly. As the Acton Institute’s Ballor put it, the cardinal is warning “about an economy that lacks participants who act from the basis of a serious and committed moral foundation,” and his comment is “about a lack of religious discipline as much as economic discipline.”

The amazing thing about what then Cardinal Ratzinger said was not that it was particularly brilliant or even “prophetic”, but that so few people today recognize the moral and ethical behavior on which our financial system rests.  It’s so obvious and apparent, yet people are so blinded in their greed, excess and sin that it has taken a serious financial collapse to drive home the point.  Everything from excessive spending to excessive demand for exorbitant returns has fueled this moral collapse.  No economic collapse can occur without an underlying moral culpability. Yet, there are lots of KoolAid drinkers out there who think there is no connection between morality and making money.  They believe that everything can be fixed by the government pumping in or pumping out money.  The focus is on the form and not the substance of the problem. In other words, we want to change the colour of the paint when the whole house is rotten and is about to collapse on our heads. 

For decades, liberals who like to pretend they are “economic conservatives” were telling social conservatives to “keep morality” out of politics.  Not only will that view turn out to be quite disastrous as we head into an Obamanation term during the next four years, but it seems that keeping morality and God out of economics hasn’t done the socially liberal “fiscal conservatives” too much good either.

In fact, ignoring the Christian, Cardinal virtues:  prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude have placed the West in an economic free-fall completely parallel to its current moral condition.

The other thing that it has taught us — and this is a lesson for the libertarians out there — is that “freedom” cannot exist without a search for the truth.  I tried to point this out to Rob Breakenridge in my discussions with him earlier this Summer, but he didn’t listen.  This is one of the things I explained to him:

To the extent that that speech departs from THE TRUTH is the extent to which we will suffer.   Suppressing speech is tyranny. But that doesn’t mean that wild and false speech doesn’t bring its own kind of hell. It does.  If you think it doesn’t, then you are merely elevating “freedom” (licence actually) into an idol and refusing to acknowledge that speech that does not respect the boundary of truth is speech that will eventually enslave us.  This is the legal fiction that many people have failed to recognize on “our” side of the fence.  Freedom without the truth is a legal fiction. It will not sustain a civilization.  Amazingly, there was a time when Canada did not accept pornography or abortion or homosexual imperialism or even contraception.  That was before Trudeau and I should think Canadians before Trudeaupia knew and understood freedom much better than we do today.   Lord knows that that generation paid the price defending it so they should know what they are talking about. (Source)

He wanted to treat freedom as some kind of absolute virtue without acknowledging that without truth and morality, society will collapse just like our markets have.  The markets collapsed because moral restraint in lending and spending were simply not present.  It was about good times without financial or moral reality. It is not enough for us to demand our freedoms – whether they be economic or civil – if we do not also seek out and submit to the Truth.

The problems with our culture today is that we do not have a proper understanding of freedom. And that’s probably the biggest reason why the financial markets have collapsed.  It’s called the “American Dream” for a reason. Because a dream is not real.

Remember this line?  It’s the economy, stupid! 

Indeed it is, but you must be a big fool to think that morality and truth (with a capital “T”) can be ignored in managing it.

Comments No Comments »

Ezra has ripped the CJC and B’nai Brith a good one. You can check it out here.

Here is the part that I especially liked. (I think Ezra was referring to my recent post here): 

It’s one thing to be pig-headed, like Burny and BB. But at what point to the bosses at both of those organizations cut their losses? How much longer will the Official Jews keep doubling down on their bets against freedom? I tell you one thing, if you wanted to increase anti-Semitic feeling — and ill-will in the Christian community, which is actually the Jews’ best friend — there is no better way than to be the new fascists of Canada.Are they trying to out-bid Elmasry for that dishonourable title? How bizarre, that not 70 years after the Holocaust, it’s our tribe that is the bully, our tribe that is calling for a limitation of freedom, and our tribe that is so disdainful of public opinion.

The CJC and B’nai Brith are doing more to stoke anti-semitism than 10,000 skin heads could ever do. And they are doing it, ironically enough, with the stated intention of eradicating that which they are blindly fomenting! Just how absurd is that?!

We see whole communities, Christians and conservatives, being picked apart by a law which is supported and instigated by a leadership which claims to represent a racial constituency’s opinion on this law.

So it’s natural to get upset at the leadership of such a constituency when they do such things, and that’s very dangerous to the constituency as a whole.

Before this whole CHRC thing blew out of proportion, I would have looked favourably – or at least neutrally – on groups like the CJC and B’nai Brith.

Not any more. 

I know a lot of Catholics. I’ll be sure to warn them about groups like B’nai Brith and the CJC. I’ll do my part to educate the Church leadership – priests and bishops too – of which I have had some interaction with over the years. The leadership of the CJC and B’nai Brith can consider me and thousands like me their opponent.

If regular Joes like me are upset, the Official Jews should ask themselves if there really dumb position in support of the Star Chambers are a smart PR move in trying to build good will and rapport with other communities? Does it do a good job of fighting anti-semitism?

No, I don’t think so. It’s doing the exact opposite.  But that’s what they have brought upon themselves.

I hope the grassroot Jewish members wake up and fire their leadership. 

Fire. Them. All.

Comments No Comments »

I guess the Prof. Moon decided to read the writing on the wall and recommend the repeal of S. 13(1) of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act.  I confess that I am astonished, however.  The bolded section below represents some of the points summarized by the CHRC….

1. The first recommendation is that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with hate speech, in particular hate speech on the Internet.

This might be the greatest victory the blogosphere has ever won. Outside of taking down the main stream media from time-to-time, this really is a feather in our collective caps.  A great deal of gratitude goes out to our captain-in-arms, Ezra Levant, who led the charge and took the SLAPP suit hits for us during this ride.

Hate speech should continue to be prohibited under the Criminal Code but confined to expression that advocates, justifies or threatens violence. In the fight against hate on the Internet, police and prosecutors should make greater use of section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, which gives a judge power to order an Internet service provider (ISP) to remove “hate propaganda” from its system.

Although the whole “hate propaganda” ruse is still on the books, at least Dr. Moon has the common sense to restrict the prosecution of expression to those statements which advocate violence.  That’s a big leap forward in the Canadian “Human Rights” culture of corruption and jackboot enforcement. I can hardly believe my eyes in reading this. 

Each province should establish a provincial “Hate Crime Team,” composed of both police and Crown law officers with experience in the area to deal with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes including hate speech under the Criminal Code.

This causes me some concern.  I wonder if we are simply replacing one jackboot with another more vicious and powerful one.  All we need is for CHRC-type employees filling out job application forms with the RCMP.  Can you imagine that?  This new “Hate Crime Unit” will be like the CHRC on legislative steroids. 

2. The second part of the recommendations concerns changes that should be made to section 13 of the CHRA if it is not repealed.

These changes would reshape section 13 so that it more closely resembles a criminal restriction on hate speech.

They include:

changes to the language in order to clarify that the section prohibits only the most extreme instances of discriminatory expression, that threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group;

Again, we see a more restrictive application of “hate crimes” to advocating for violence only. That’s a good sign. 

the amendment of section 13(1) of the CHRA to include an intention requirement; and

Poor Mark Steyn. He was having such fun with his complaint. With this sort of NECESSARY provision, he won’t be a target anymore.

the amendment of the CHRA to establish a distinct process for the investigation of section 13 complaints by the CHRC. Under the amended process, the CHRC would receive inquiries and information from individuals or community groups but would no longer investigate and assess formal complaints.The CHRC would have the exclusive right to initiate an investigation in section 13 cases. If, following an investigation, the CHRC recommends that the case be sent to the CHRT, the CHRC would have carriage of the case before the Tribunal.

I’m not too sure what to make of this.  What does this mean? That Dean Steacy and the gang would simply be moved out of the CHRC and into the “investigative wing” of the Hate Crimes Unit under Section 13(1)?  What good is that? Some administrative shuffling between departments does not remove the threat of the Human Rights enforcers.

This would remove the significant burden that under the existing system falls on the complainant. It would also enable the CHRC to dismiss (decide not to pursue) a “complaint” earlier in the process, when it finds that the communication at issue does not breach the section 13(1) standard and is unlikely to succeed at Tribunal.

Significant burden for the complainant?  Only the CHRC would write such crap, all the while blindly refusing to see the onerous conditions that respondents are under. It’s sick. Really sick.  If Parliament had any testicular fortitude, it would completely gut the CHRC, fire all of its managerial employees and put the department under the direct supervision of a parliamentary committee.  Furthermore, if there were any justice, there would be a full and impartial judicial inquiry into the illegal and fraudulent tactics of the CHRC with fines and prison terms ready to be handed out. That’s what should happen to make these thugs understand the hell they have put Canadians under for the past thirty years.

Fire. All. Of. Them. 

Fine. Most. Of. Them.

Imprison. Some. Of. Them.

Comments No Comments »

From Connie at FD…. 

Yesterday Mark and I drove all the way to Ottawa to take some paperwork to the CHRC. They have been stonewalling us since April on our Access to Information request for the files on Free Dominion and I had a document that I wanted to give them in person that would clear the way for them to fulfill our request.We got to the building on 344 Slater St. and took the elevator to the 8th floor.

When we walked in, we did not encounter a receptionist like we expected. There was a security guard behind glass, instead. When I wanted to hand him the letter with my case number on it, I had to slip it through a little slot in the glass.

He directed us to sit in two chairs across from his station and he disappeared into the back. He came back out in a couple of minutes and told us that he had given the letter to someone who would pass it along until they found someone who could “give us an answer”. I thought that was rather strange since I had already said that I just wanted to talk to Heather Throop and give her a document.

As we were waiting, we heard a huge commotion in the outside hall, which had been utterly deserted. A guy came barrelling down the hall with a cart loaded with files, grabbed an elevator, and disappeared. I turned to Mark and whispered, “There go our files”.

A few moments later, a young, timid-looking girl came out and handed something to the security guard, whispered something to him, and then retreated quickly from our sight. I honestly thought the poor girl suspected we were wired with bombs!

The security guard then told us that Heather Throop wasn’t in, but asked if we would like to talk to Deborah Cansick. I said that that would be fine because I have talked to her by email several times.

Mark and I stood waiting as the security guard walked out the back door of his booth and we prepared to go in to see Deborah Cansick.

To my utter astonishment, he, instead, picked up a phone in the waiting room, dialed a number, and handed it to me. I wasn’t even allowed to see Deborah Cansick…I had to speak to her on a phone while she hid in another room!!

Well, to make a long story short, Cansick told me there was no point in giving her the paperwork I brought because they weren’t planning on fulfilling my request.

I hung up the phone, took my letter back through the little hole in the window, and Mark and I left the office for the elevator. As we were waiting, an older woman and a guy with a bunch of earphones attached to him came and waited with us and got on the elevator as we rode down. I said to Mark later that it seemed like they appeared out of nowhere to make sure we actually left the building!

Both Mark and I were spooked by our experience at the CHRC. It was unlike any other government office we have ever seen. Talk about “faceless bureaucracy”! It is absolutely frightening that these people, who spend their days hidden behind a security guard and bulletproof glass, have the power to utterly destroy the lives of Canadians, and they don’t even have to look their victims in the eyes.

George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

It’s time like these that I sure am glad to have the courageous guys like Stephen Harper and Rob Nicholson on our side.  Can’t we all see how they jump in the service of freedom and liberty? We sure are lucky, huh?

Comments No Comments »

As a Catholic, I’ve always looked at Jews favourably. 

But I will be very honest with you. If it was not for that unofficial Jew, Ezra Levant, that whole perception would have radically changed by now in light of who is fueling the whole HRC racket.

Ezra’s hillarious “Official Jews” label that he stuck on organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith has disarmed any real animosity towards Jews.  In fact, I would wager that Ezra Levant has single handedly been able to not only denormalize the HRCs, but he’s been able to deflect any real anger towards the Jewish community as a result of the outrageous support of the HRCs by the aforementioned groups.  In fact, he’s probably done more to elevate the respect and admiration for Canadian Jews during the past eight months more than B’nai Brith and the CJC have done in their entire existence.  This is quite the feat, considering the hell the “Official Jews” have unleashed on Christian leaders and communities these past number of years by using the HRCs as personal kafka kourts to do their bidding, all the while turning a blind eye towards Christians who are being pummelled by the OJ’s liberal allies in gaydom.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot and B’nai Brith has been tagged with a ridiculous “human rights complaint” of its own, everything changes and now the law has to bend so the Official Jewish organizations can get off, while, presumably, the train keeps running over helpless Christian pastors, priests, and peasants.

 B’nai Brith doesn’t want human rights commissions abolished. “There is a problem, we need reform but the jurisdictions [over hate speech] are worth keeping,” he said. Commissions have developed “without a full range of procedural safeguards, with informality. That was not a problem until a series of abusive complaints,” Matas said. In its brief to Moon, BBC warns that human rights commissions are unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with ideological complaints driven by political Islam. B’nai Brith has urged reforms that include limiting complaints to a single jurisdiction, awarding costs against those who attempt to abuse the system by harassing “bona fide respondents” and educating investigators on the “get-political context within which they operate.”

Where the hell were these guys when average Canadians were getting run over by the fascists at the HRCs? Were they blind? Or were they simply using the HRCs and their Star Chamber Courts to advance their own paranoid dementia of “hate crimes”, all the while ignoring the genuine stripping of Canadian Civil Liberties?

Well perhaps we need to keep the HRCs in place for a while longer and give the “Official Jews” a taste of their own medicine. I see no reason why the Official Jews should be above the law. After all, they had a hand in forming it and fomenting it.  It only seems fair that they should taste some of the fruit they’ve been forcing down our throats all these years.

I still don’t have an anti-semitic bone in my body, thanks be to God.

But that’s thanks to Ezra Levant, not to the Official Jews.

Comments 3 Comments »

H/T Heyitsjustablogman 

Comments 1 Comment »

If you ever hear pro-aborts shuffle nervously about eugenics and abortion, there’s a reason for that — or at least, there was.

Today, eugenics is becoming a much more acceptable and dignified position among the medical establishment.  We saw it flare up during the U.S. presidential elections when the vice president of SOGC piped in at the horrible specter of allowing Down Syndrome children to live:

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to.   

“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.

Citing his concern for women’s “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe. (Source)

In the past, pro-aborts would dismiss the clear connection between eugenics and abortion, even when it was pointed out to them that their champion of contraception and abortion was an avowed Eugenicist who once quipped that “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923). 

But this connection is not only a historical reality which was played out in Nazi Germany. There is an unmistakable logical necessity between the two movements as well.

“ContrAbortion” and Eugenics both seek to remove the burden and the sacrifice that arise when two people have sex.  Eugenics lays the philosophical foundation which permits not only the dehumanization of the human person who has disabilities or belongs to another race, but the social darwinian belief that only the strong should survive.  As Sanger puts it:

“Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes” (Pivot of Civilization, p. 274).

“No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective” (Woman and the New Race [NY:Blue Ribbon Books, 1920], p.89).

Birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives” (Ibid., p. 229).

Why are disabled people looked down upon by Eugenicists like Sanger, an increasing number of medical professionals today and the society as a whole?

For one reason only. 

Their existence demands much sacrificial love – love that we are not prepared to give.  Abortion exists because of a massive vacuum of love. 

But why should that stop at the disabled?  If the sacrificial burden – emotional, physical, and financial – is too great to bear, why should we stop at the disabled as an excuse to get rid of our problem?  If the disabled per se are not the problem, but the fact that we are facing a situation with a lifetime of sacrifice and work, well, then, everyone who is placed in the position of responsibility should have the “right” to terminate an unborn child – whether the baby is perfectly healthy or disabled.  But then, why should we stop at an unborn child?  There are many elderly who are a constant burden to their adult children too.  Shouldn’t these adults get a break also, especially if their parents are really sick and suffering?  Why should the pregnant woman and her partner be the only ones with the option of unloading their moral responsibility?

The death peddlers in our culture don’t call it “eugenics” because that label has too much historical baggage.  But underneath its shiny veneer is a philosophy which abhors sacrifice and paves the way to elimination of ALL “undesirables” regardless of gender, ability, race, or any other discriminating factor.

If one of your family members declares you “undesirable”, don’t look to the State for support.

Because your number will be up. If you’re too much of a burden, it’s time to terminate you.

Comments 3 Comments »

Grandmother’s Account of Traumatizing Experience with Abortion Moves Jamaican Parliamentarians to Tears

By Jonquil Frankham

KINGSTON, Jamaica, November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent presentation by a woman who 20 years ago bullied her daughter into having an abortion reduced members of the Jamaican parliament to tears, reports the Jamaica Gleaner. 

Anne Arthur, a grief counselor, told the parliament she has never fully recovered from having bullied her daughter into killing her unborn child. “I drove my daughter to the abortion clinic like a lamb to the slaughterhouse, against her will,” Arthur told her audience.

“I pressed my views on her and convinced her that she would be unable to care for the child while studying and an abortion would be the best thing to do, offering her no other solution or help … While my 12-week-old grand-daughter was ripped apart from my daughter’s womb, I knew with brutal clarity that I had made the greatest mistake of my life,” said Arthur.

Arthur told the parliamentary gathering that she does not support abortion under any circumstances now, even under the usual exceptions of rape and incest. She said that her 41-year old daughter, now married, has had trouble conceiving because of the damage the abortion, which was performed legally in Germany, caused.

Arthur’s presentation was part of a debate over the legalization of abortion in Jamaica. Sections 72 and 73 of the country’s Offences against the Person Act currently punish participation in abortion with a sentence of up to life imprisonment. However, an advisory group established by former Health Minister John Junor found that increases in maternal fatality are purportedly due to illegal and unsafe abortions, as LifeSiteNews reported November 14th. The advisory group pushed for the legalization of abortion as the solution to the problem.

Dr. Doreen Brady West of the Coalition for the Defense of Life, however, told the Jamaican parliament last week that she is doubtful legalizing abortions will decrease maternal mortality. Rather, she argued, illegal and unsafe abortions are very minor contributors to the maternal death rate in Jamaica. The real solution, she said, is in better antenatal care.

The debate over abortion in Jamaica has been emotionally charged and deeply controversial. As reported by LifeSiteNews, graphic video depictions of abortions have been shown to the parliament, prompting some to leave the room and many to avert their eyes in discomfort.

As the Gleaner reported, Arthur maintained that the legalization of abortion in Jamaica would merely result in a dramatic increase in abortions, as happened in both Germany and the United States, and not the protection of expectant mothers.

This is what happens outside of the Morgentaler Abortion Mill everyday.  Many young girls are forced to abort by their mothers. They’re crying and desperate when they show up. You can see it on their faces. They don’t want to do it.  But guess what?  Nobody is on their side. Except us strangers. Although we’re there to help emotionally, spiritually, and financially, it would cause a major rift with their families and boyfriends if the girls backed out. 

Pro-choice? Don’t be ridiculous.  There are so many threats and intimidation tactics going on, the abortion businesss is nothing more than a subsidiary of Mafia Inc. 

The Mill keeps up a booming business which is built on fear, despair, and the intimidation of family members and the culture as a whole.

And we can’t compete with that.

Comments 1 Comment »