An Austrian professor argued the Pope should be sentenced to death for his opposition to the use of contraception.
Liberal totalitarianism just keeps showing its true colours of “toleration”.
The toleration of the Left is all about enforcing a sexual dictatorship and will brook no dissent. Catholicism claims that your sexual behaviour will largely determine your happiness in this life and will have a direct bearing on where you spend eternity in the life to come.
Liberalism doesn’t care where you spend the next life, it just wants to put a bullet in you in this life, if you oppose their sexual agenda.
On November 9 at St. Paul’s University, I had the great pleasure of watching For Greater Glory. It was a chronicle of the Cristeros War (1926-1929); a war by the people of Mexico against the atheistic Mexican government. The protagonists were called the “Cristeros” - the courageous Catholic men and women of Mexico who laid down their lives for the freedom of the Church.
There were around 120-130 people at the screening by my estimation, including a number of people who found out about it through Socon or Bust. Shout out to all the Busters who came out! Archbishop Prendergast also came out. Not sure if he found out through Socon or Bust
Normally “pro-Church” English-speaking movies are mediocre at best. RAI (the Italian outfit), for instance, who is responsible for many great Church movies - movies about the Saints – do really top notch movies, but it’s rare to find a North American producer who puts out a first class film. I’m happy to report that For Greater Glory did not fit the mold. They got really good actors and hired a Hollywoood Script writer, and the quality showed in the product. It was an amazing, heart-wrenching movie that goes down in my books as one of the best ever made for Catholic audiences. Read the rest of this entry »
When one reads something like this, one is struck in awe and amazement of how so completely lost our Canadian episcopacy is in navel gazing questions of the 1960s:
“Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist…calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.”
The great joy with which families from all over the world congregated in Milan indicates that, despite all impressions to the contrary, the family is still strong and vibrant today. But there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world. It was noticeable that the Synod repeatedly emphasized the significance, for the transmission of the faith, of the family as the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence. This is something we learn by living it with others and suffering it with others. So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human. The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment. Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man’s nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for? Man’s refusal to make any commitment – which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering – means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his “I” ultimately for himself, without really rising above it. Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child – essential elements of the experience of being human are lost.
The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.
The parents, Andrea and Gerno, decide to home-school their children on religious grounds, believing the German state education was socialist and conflicted with their strong Christian beliefs.
…After fighting with education officials in Germany – including receiving more than $6000 in fines – the family came to New Zealand in 2008 on temporary visas.
They now live in Waipu, Northland, where Mr Schoeneich works as a school teacher.
In appealing for refugee status, they claimed their two youngest children would be “completely devastated” if they were forced to enrol in state schools in Germany.
If they were deported, the two older children would struggle to find work and the family would not be able to obtain accommodation, because “home schoolers” were discriminated against, they claimed.
But in a decision released this week, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal rejected these arguments.
There was little evidence to support claims of hardship and it was highly unlikely they would be imprisoned, the tribunal found. It pointed out: “There is no right at international law to home schooling.”… (Source)
And there you have it folks. Everything is ass-backwards. Instead of the State supporting parents and their rights, it’s in reverse. We all serve and bow to the State. ‘Cause big brother knows what’s good for you.
When I read this, and then this, my friends, the scam of belonging to the same religion becomes increasingly obvious.
“I don’t think a man can allow himself to be divided by his convictions,” Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe, president of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview yesterday. “A politician cannot be totally schizophrenic. If he is, he is not being real.” Bishop Plouffe also cautioned all Catholic MPs to “think twice” before they vote on the contentious issue in the House of Commons. (Source)
But Justin is rabidly in support of same-sex “marriage”. I guess his schizophrenia is different than the one +Plouffe mentioned above. But then again, that was almost 10 years ago. Bishops change. Like the times and modernism.
…“Mr. Trudeau is a practicing Catholic, married in the Church with two children. He is not estranged from the Church in any way,” Plouffe said in a statement to the school board, obtained by LifeSiteNews. “In many ways he can be a source of inspiration to the youth.”…(Source)
72.14 years old. 2 years 11 months left until +Plouffe’s retirement.
When your hope is fading….look to the biological solution for strength.
No doubt there will be an outcry from CanChurch over this mockery of Catholic teaching and insult to innocent human life.
I don’t doubt the Borg will be responsible for keeping all of our brave bishops quiet…because, after all, phony unity must be preserved at all costs!
The legacy of the Winnipeg Statement just keeps killing.
If you happen to be Catholic, or a Catholic ratepayer, we ask you to please join scheduled protests at the Catholic School Board office and at St. Charles College this Wednesday and Thursday, to demand that Trudeau’s talk be cancelled. Protests have been organized by local Catholics from 7:15am to 9:30am and from 2:45pm to 4:30pm at the school board office, located at Catholic Education Centre, 165A D’Youville St, Sudbury, ON, P3C 5E7.
Large banners designed by CLC will be provided as well as a few signs. If you make your own signs, please keep the message to “CANCEL JUSTIN” or “STOP TRUDEAU ABORTION SCANDAL”.
The same melancholy story is the background to other rampage killers:
Only three days before the Connecticut murders, 22-year-old Jacob Roberts ran amok in a Portland, Oregon, shopping mall. He killed two people with an automatic rifle before committing suicide. He had never known his mother and was raised by a divorced aunt and her husband who shared custody of him.
Wade Page was a white supremacist who shot six Sikhs dead in Milwaukee before being killed by a police officer earlier this year. His parents were divorced.
Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people with a car bomb and semi-automatic rifle in Norway in 2011. He has been jailed for 25 years. His parents divorced when he was one year old.
Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, took a bag of rifles and handguns to Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and killed four girls and a teacher in 1998. They were jailed until they turned 21. Johnson’s parents were divorced.
Thomas Hamilton, 43, killed 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996 with four handguns before shooting himself. His parents were divorced when he was three years old.
George Hennard, 35, shot 23 people dead with a Glock 17 semi-automatic, and then shot himself on October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas. His parents had divorced in 1983.
Marc Lépine, 25, killed 14 women in Montreal in 1989. His parents separated when he was seven.
James Oliver Huberty killed 21 people, including five children, in in a McDonald’s restaurant in San Ysidro, California in 1984. His parents were divorced.
Every year, over a million children are affected by divorce in the US. Sure, only an infinitesimal fraction of these go on deadly shooting sprees. But every year, more than 11 million firearms are sold, and only a couple of those are used by mass murderers. Divorce control makes even more sense than gun control….
Ah yes, but gun control is easy for the liberal because there is little that he has to give up. There’s no personal accountability and sacrifice involved with that. It’s an easy way out and a good way to pin the substance of the problem on a conservative hangup with guns.
But Divorce? That’s a whole new ballgame that they must – at all costs – refuse to talk about or acknowledge because that would require considering a change of behaviour and that’s anathema to the nouveau religionists of secularism.