The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
The devil must really be laughing today. He delights in ignorance and sin. He assuredly has had a hand in the miscommunication of the Pope’s words on condom use. The Pope seemed pretty clear to me in his opposition. But Satan delights in dissent and the numbing of consciences.
WHAT DID THE POPE ACTUALLY SAY?
The Holy Father responded to a series of questions in a book entitled LIGHT OF THE WORLD by Peter Seewald. An over-sexed world latches upon a few remarks about condoms and reads far too much into them.
When asked about the Church’s view of condom use, Pope Benedict XVI replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.”
The Pope answered: “In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”
He grants that the use of condoms might reflect the first stirrings of a MORAL SENSE and the desire not to harm or kill others through the spread of infection. He is not giving approval to condom use, merely to a movement away from selfishness and irresponsibility to a more mature regard for the needs and rights of others. Notice that he says this might be the “first step.” Later steps would have such a person come to awareness that condoms are an insufficient answer and that marital monogamy and/or abstinence is the way to go.
He clarifies this with an example: “There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes. But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”
The Pope is very clear, despite misrepresentations in the news media, that condom use is “not the proper way” to deal with the HIV epidemic.
The popular misunderstanding of his remarks reflects this papal assertion: “Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug.”
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The remarks from the Holy Father have been sensationalized and misconstrued. The Church’s moral stand on condom use has NOT CHANGED. Condomistic intercourse is always and everywhere intrinsically immoral.
The press seems to think that the Church has changed its moral teaching, at least allowing male prostitutes to use condoms. Some idiots are actually complaining and questioning that if male prostitutes can use condoms then how about female prostitutes and those who live and act like prostitutes? One writer was upset that condoms were now permitted to all except married couples. But the Pope did not say that condoms were okay; indeed, he argued quite the opposite. He merely says that such usage might indicate the beginnings of a moral reflection. What they are actually doing is still condemned as a matter of mortal sin.
Cynics might argue that if you are going to sin then sin wisely. But the Church will never recommend sinful behavior, even to avoid other evils.
God save us from stupid people!
We pray to the Lord… LORD, hear our prayer!
I doubt you will hear this petition any time soon in our churches, but among faithful learned Catholics, it is certainly a plea we make in our personal prayers.
Media analysts and even governments need to be added to this plea. A similar ignorance led to an Islamic uproar over the Pope’s academic remarks back in 2006 in Regensburg, Bavaria when he urged a disavowal of violence as a dictated in the Koran for forced conversions. Protestors proved his point by murdering a nun and chanted, “Death to the Pope!” The Pope makes a subtle qualification about condom use and extremists on one side demand “further” compromise and on the other, chastise the Holy Father for heretical deviation. Even the Spanish government ridiculed the Pope for not going far enough, and yet the papal responses represent no retreat from the moral law. The Pope does not have the authority to declare right something which is objectively wrong. Pope Benedict XVI carefully nuances his words and many today do not have the intellectual savvy to parse his statements.
A United Nation’s top AIDS official said, “This move recognizes that responsible sexual behavior and the use of condoms have important roles in HIV prevention.” It was nothing of the kind. The Pope still rightly condemns the use of condoms as an unacceptable solution. Activists in South Africa judged the statement as a “step in the right direction.” But I repeat, there has been no change of direction. Other enthusiasts for condomistic contraception wrongly rejoiced that this will allow for population control. The Holy Father will most certainly have to offer a grade-school-level explanation of his words to these thick-headed fools. Otherwise, they will spread the lie that we shall see Church approved artificial contraception. Indeed, some voices in the press are talking about this as I speak.
God save us from stupid people!
God save us from the manipulation of truth and the oppression of Satan!
This is a REPOSTING of a post I made back in 2007. It is amazing how many hits the MODEST SWIMSUITS post received (30,667 hits as of today). I guess that topic is something virtuous people regularly plug into search engines in the desperate hope of finding something for themselves and for their children to wear.
My earlier post was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek and yet the concern is a real one for people. Good Christian girls might not want to disguise their beauty to the extent of some of the Moslem styles, but neither do they want skimpy outfits that are little better than all-out nudity. I suppose more mature women want suits that stress their femininity while not exaggerating the few pounds that come with age and childbirth. Given his celibacy, I joked about priests unable to go to the beach, but have things reached such a point that the beach represents a real danger to any Christian and the family?
One final qualification, while this posting does poke a little fun, the subject matter is serious and the good Muslim ladies are a wonderful witness to modesty, with all kidding aside. I understand that a number of people even followed the links here and gave them some swimwear business. While I might think there coverage is a bit much, they have earned my respect for daring to be counter-cultural and cherishing both modesty and chastity.
Yes, I am talking about the weaknesses of the flesh and acts of passion, but also about possible abuse and assault. Spiritually, there is the matter of the soul, too. Can a man admire bikini clad young girls and simply praise God for the goodness of creation? Or is a man more likely fantasizing about them? When plenty of flesh is literally delivered to the senses on a platter, a person might not need a wild imagination or much further motivation for sinful thoughts.
Similarly, women are increasingly joking about male bulges and butts. They are not immune to sexual fantasies either, and such can constitute immodest thoughts and, as with the men, even adultery in the heart. When was the last time any of us heard someone teach about the moral imperative to maintain a “custody of the eyes”?
FOLLOWING IS THE ORIGINAL POST. I HOPE YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR.
Traditional Catholics and Homeschooling parents are always lamenting the fact that they cannot find modest swimsuits for the young women in the family. Everything is designed these days to show ballooning cleavage and legs extended past the waistline, or so it seems. It is all a very scary business, especially if there are young men and teenage boys on the beaches too. Remember, the most dangerous thing for a teenage girl is a teenage boy! Many of us have not visited beaches in years so as to preserve the custody of the eyes. Well, if you are tired of parading your young daughters to the ravenous beach wolves, there is hope in sight. It comes from a highly unlikely place, the Muslims.
Less willing to go naked as many so-called Catholics and other Christians these days, these girls also want fun in the sun, laying on the beach, and swimming in the surf. But, they do not want to forfeit their virginity or be prey to voyeurs in doing it. It is here that we can take a lesson from their book.
SPLASHGEAR MODEST SWIMWEAR has been designed with loose-fitting swim shirts (yes, even that pretty neck is covered!), swim pants (legs, what legs?) and hair covers (which she can use at Mass, too!). Why these girls look almost like boys they are covered so effectively. Fathers will no longer have to worry, indeed, they can get modest swim-gear for their wives too (they come even in jumbo sizes!).
An article about these wonderful swimsuits ran in an AP (Feb 18, 2007) article by Peter Prengaman that you can read in full at the Splash Gear site:
“America is predominantly coed, and increasingly the norm is skimpy swimsuits. Enter the new-and-improved all-body suit. The suits are also increasingly stylish, with aqua to purple to hot pink colors, intricate sequin designs and miniskirts that go over long pants. ‘We want to be modest, but we also want to be fashionable,’ said Shereen Sabet, who last year founded Splashgear, an online swimwear store for Muslim women based in Huntington Beach.”
The flipside to all this is that it will help us save our young Catholic boys from corruption, too. No matter how we raise them, let us be honest, when it comes to the flesh, the male of the species is weak. Girls flirt and shamelessly show themselves off to boys, arguing that it is okay as long as they do not get the boys’ engines running. Silly silly girls, boys are born with their motors running. Sexual morality will always be what young women want it to be. If most girls set limits and said “NO!” more often, boys would accept it and be better off. These swimsuits will help…out of sight, out of mind. All the bumpy parts are covered, even down to the ankles. Strategic scarves cover necks and chins and the headgear on other outfits goes all around the chin. Some might regard the hair-guard as optional, but don’t you chance it! Who knows what a pretty neck or a rosy cheek might do to a hormonal crazy boy! The Bible talks about the allure of a woman’s hair, best to keep that under cover as well.
The Church should start its own line, and we could sell to “good” Catholics and Muslims alike. But until then, the Muslims have online and mail-order catalogues! If our kids are afraid that others might make fun of them, we can start groups that will go to pools and beaches together. Catholic homeschoolers and Muslim girls can swim together and urge authorities to force those nasty boys to go somewhere else! With strength of numbers, our families and girls can admonish the other so-called Catholic females on the beach: “Have you no shame for exposing yourselves in underwear? Protestants, I mean Prostitutes wear more clothes than you! Why don’t you save money and just wear a couple pieces of cotton thread instead of that $500 string-bikini! Your butt is fat! My newborn baby sees you and all he wants to do is nurse!” You’ll have those immodest sirens running from the beaches in tears.
Compare this girl to the ones shown in modest-wear above! It is no comparison! This girl is nothing but temptation and sin looking for trouble. Look at her with that “come-hither” stare–disgusting!
Let us make a revolution for purity and modesty today!
If everyone starts wearing these new outfits, we will finally be able to take our clergy on beach vacations and not have to be embarrassed by the local sights. Take back the pools and beaches for the Lord and for us modest believers. We can make a difference! Finally we have found something worthwhile we can do with our Muslim neighbors!
Yesterday our parish hall was a polling place in the Prince George’s County Elections. Less than 500 voters came out but the campaign workers gave out pamphlets and cards, shouted the names of candidates, littered the property with signs, etc. When the election was over, they disappeared, leaving all their trash behind. It was a real mess!
CLICK THE PICTURE ABOVE to see the pictures I took this morning. They demonstrate the level of disrespect they showed this church and the local community. Another property on 450 is posted against tresspassers and dumping. It is surrounded by campaign signs. I guess private property and anti-littering laws do not mean much to those who would be elected officials and to many of those who would support them.
Although a number of years have passed, many still wonder, why did Pope John Paul II kiss a Koran presented to him? The debate rages on.
FATHER JOE:
Is it not a book that speaks directly against the Catholic faith? Does it not reduce the Son of God to a mere prophet? Did not the popes of the past demand its burning? The answer to all these questions is YES, and yet what the Holy Father did was more complicated than what the anti-Catholic and/or sedevacantist spin-doctors might say about it.
One critic argues that it was a blasphemous act, showing his “hatred” of God and his apostate defection from the true faith. It was none of these things. The Pope is on the record about the differences between Catholics and the followers of Islam. Let us look at the situation. The Pope longed to go to Iraq in order to walk in the footsteps of Abraham, claimed as a “father in faith” by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Pope John Paul II saw firsthand the depth of man’s inhumanity to his brothers and sisters. Our history as a world is written in blood. As illustrated in his repeated “mea culpa,” he strives for a new understanding between peoples where dialogue, tolerance, and cooperation will replace anathemas, persecution, and rivalry. Abraham is an integral figure of unity in turning things around politically. Looking at the incident in question, the Holy Father received a delegation that included the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion. The invitation of a papal visit was renewed. They even went so far as to say that it would be “a grace from heaven.” While Iraq has been guilty of real violations of human rights, this Islamic state was the most tolerant of Christians than any of its Islamic neighbors. Many Catholics held positions in government, commerce, education, etc. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (Iraq), His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, was a major spokesman for the delegation. He applauded the Pope’s actions and words as a true sign of concern from the Successor of St. Peter. (Christians represented 5% of the 20 million people in Iraq. Catholics of the large Chaldean rite [implementing the Aramaic language] and of the smaller Latin rite represented 80% of all Christians there.) It was said that a papal visit would confirm the faith of Christian believers while showing forth a genuine love for all in this mostly Muslim nation.
The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.
DISCUSSION
COLETTE: I am thinking he does not know what the Koran says about Catholics. Was he pressured into it? Did he wrongly think this was consistent with ecumenical dialogue or what? I cannot imagine any good reasons. There are none. Let’s face it— it was a crazy thing for a true Roman Catholic Pontiff to do. Would the leader of Islam do this with the Bible?
FATHER JOE: It seems to me that the Holy Father opted for the moral high ground. We cannot worry that such respect would not be reciprocal. His teachings clearly professed his faith in Jesus Christ. This gesture to the Koran is not dissimilar from his kissing the soil of nations he visited. It is a sign of human respect, but not a profession of faith or an imprimatur upon the Koran. The book was a visible symbol of a people and the Pope showed them welcome. It might also be seen as an invocation for peace between the Christians and Moslems.
RAY: I suspect that many of you do not know much about Islam. The Pope understood Islam and recognized the many messages we hold in common. People, who feel they must hate something, in order to love something else, are the reason why there are world wars and much suffering in the world.
FATHER JOE: True Christians hate sin, not sinners. One might show human respect to something like the Koran, particularly given its antiquity and meaning to so many; however, this is all a Christian and Jew can do. It is not our book. We neither acknowledge it as inspired nor as inerrant. We do not claim it as God’s Word. Indeed, it conflicts in many places with what God has genuinely revealed to us as his truth.
MANNY: It just goes to show that John Paul II saw the light before he died. I love this picture even though most so-called Christians are fearful of his simple act of kissing the Koran. He was a good man who had all the qualities of one who will go to heaven, even if he was not necessarily following God’s religion of choice. People in general need ever more to practice what they preach. We need inter-faith knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of other faiths. The religious hatred toward the Koran is very disturbing. This just goes to show that FEAR is the root of all evil. It is a shame that people from supposedly religious Christian backgrounds have commented in a very non-religious way about the Pope’s kissing of the Koran. He kissed the Koran out of respect, realizing that the three religions of the Middle East are not as dissimilar as some believe. He respected Islam. This is something that religious Christians should applaud and not criticize. Anyway, may he rest in peace.
LOLA: I read a third of the Koran and could not go any further when I read that a husband could hit his wife if she misbehaved. It is written that it is okay to kill Jews when they have been given two previous warnings. Jesus never said to kill anyone; he was the prince of peace. There are major contradictions! Well, I suppose I have read more of the Koran than most Moslems and more of the Bible than most Christians. The Pope kissing the Koran was not a wise thing to do. One can accept a copy of the Koran as a gift without compromising your own beliefs. This should especially be so for the Pope, who is the big honcho of the Catholic faith. Maybe the reason we have so many different religious beliefs is because God wants to test the tolerance of our hearts before we are taken home to him? One last comment, if you have half-doubted your faith then you have only half-believed. Just because your parents were of a certain religious faith, it does not mean that you should follow in their footsteps and maybe become a puppet on a string.
FATHER JOE: Christians can follow in the footsteps of parents and the long line of the saints and still not be puppets. We, as Catholics, seek objective truth, both as revealed by God and in nature itself.
PAUL: I believe that what he did was an extremely spontaneous gesture of respect for Muslims, but not a belief in Islam per se. He was the kind of man who would even debase himself on behalf of others. If it were not a spur of the moment decision – if he had had time to think about it – he would not have done it because of the confusion it engendered. As the successor of Peter it is not his place to do such things. Like most of the fruits of Vatican II (thus far) it has caused more disorder and faithlessness than it has engendered. But because it was a holy act, just as it was a Holy Council, as Catholics, we should believe that it was ultimately good. An interpretation of it which enhances the faith will eventually prevail. The upcoming changes to the language of the Mass, the Motu Propio, etc. are the beginning of this with respect to Vatican II. But even clown masses and celebrants wearing cheese hats probably have a place in the Church of Christ. And popes make mistakes too. They are only human.
RYAN:
Kissing something is not necessarily a gesture of complete acceptance: It can signify love or respect. Think of this in the eyes of a Muslim. They are giving their most holy book, the holiest of their possessions to this man. To them, it is the word of God. What an honor for the Pope (or any person) to receive this most precious gift from them. His kiss was a show of respect and love for the Muslim people, not the Koran’s message itself.
My thoughts drift back to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Indy and his companions come to a very poor village where the people are starving. They are presented with food that would make most of our stomachs turn. Still, when his companions are shy about eating, Indy urges them to eat anyway: the food offered is the equivalent to a week’s offering in the village.
Biblically, we can look at Luke 19:1-10 (among others) for guidance. Zacchaeus, though rich in possessions, realized the meaninglessness of hoarding his riches upon the arrival of Jesus. He gives half of his belongings to the poor, and pays back the extorted four times over. Upon seeing this, Jesus says: “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost.”
Always look at the giver, and not the gift. Jesus looked at the former, and all Christians should follow his example. His blessed Pope John Paul II followed his way, knowing full well that his obedience to Christ would cause him to be smeared. May we all be as brave as him.
MISTER JOE:
Wow, Father Joe!!! What a master stroke of Spin Doctoring Genius you display in your defense of the Pope’s kissing of the abominable book. I think you should go to work for the Democratic Party and tow Clinton’s line, “It depends on what you mean by ‘is.’”
Do you even have the slightest idea what is written in that book? For that matter, did the Pope have the foggiest idea what is written in it? What I have read in it is nothing less than satanic and demonic.
If you are really interested in knowing what the Quran says, then you must learn the Arabic language, and then find an un-sanitized copy of the Quran (in the Arabic language) and read it for yourself. A friend, who was working in Saudi Arabia, brought back to the USA a Quran he had obtained from a mosque, after befriending a mullah.
However, I seriously doubt that you will indulge in such undertaking.
FATHER JOE: I have read the Koran. Make no mistake about it; the book is full of errors and fanciful stories. Have you read it? Interpretation of the Koran is difficult because of inconsistencies. Some argue that earlier texts for mercy or toleration are superseded or made void by the later more harsh statements. Pope Benedict received death threats when he charged the Islamic community with disavowing violence. Unfortunately, the Koran is the source for such sentiments as espoused by the so-called Moslem extremists. Pope John Paul never said he agreed with the book or that it was inspired. He offered no act of worship or submission to a false religion. In the interest of peace, he welcomed his visitors by humbly accepting that which they most cherished. The kiss was not one of adoration but as in the liturgy, a kiss of peace. We can pray that it may have a transformative effect for good.
SIBYL: The true sons (and daughters) of Abraham are those that believe Jesus is The Christ, Savior and LORD, The I AM…that He is the Model, The Ikon of Man, Husband, Friend, Brother. See Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, John 8, Acts 3 and 13, Romans 9, Galatians 3.
FATHER JOE: Then what about the Jews?
SIBYL: John Paul II made a grave error in kissing the book Mohammed wrote.
FATHER JOE: Such was a gesture of human respect, not divine worship. His guests knew that. There can be no doubt that the late Pope was a Catholic and not a Moslem. While you can disagree about an act of courtesy, it would be wrong to view this as a grave religious error. Your fundamentalism is showing. I am reminded of a Protestant iconoclast insisting that kissing statues and images is idolatry.
SIBYL: Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church Catechism’s # 841 is extremely dangerous and misleading.
FATHER JOE:
[CCC 841] The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16)
There is nothing outside of God’s providence, even the sins and errors of men. God’s will cannot be circumvented. While this speaks to the plan of salvation, the rest merely takes the Moslems at their word. They believe in one God. Monotheism is a higher and truer form of religion than polytheism. This is a basic appreciation from the philosophy of God. They look upon Abraham as their father, as do the Jews and in a spiritual way, as do Christians. The Pope and the catechism never say that Islam is fully a true religion. Such can be said for Catholic Christianity and for Judaism. All that is good in Judaism is embraced by the Church. Salvation comes from the Jews.
Moslems believe that God the Creator is the one true God who must be adored. They also believe that God is merciful and the final judge of all. Their religion has many errors, but about these essential points, we are in agreement. Notice how short the statement is. There is much about which we disagree. However, you would not even allow this small fragment of concurrence.
SIBYL: Mohammedism is a perverse mixture of the worship of the goddess of Ishtar, Judaism, and Christianity. Mohammedism produces a malevolent, mendacious, misogynistic male, full of hate, lust, lies and death, domination, bondage, war. In fact, Mohammedism produces the anti-christ, the opposite of Christ, who is Love, Truth and Life, who gives freedom, joy, life and peace.
FATHER JOE: There are plenty of antichrists in Christian garb as well. Anyone who sins and who refuses to repent is opposed to Christ.
SIBYL: Mohammedism is a metastasizing political religious system that does not tolerate or abide anything but domination and submission to its dictums and dogmas. You shall know them by their fruit.
FATHER JOE: (I suspect that given style transitions, you are quoting something.) Yes, but we should not be quick to judge. Further, we should not scapegoat an entire people because of the sins of a few. Some would judge all of Catholicism by the sinful acts of sick priests or by the abuses of Catholics in history.
WILLIAM: I can’t understand what’s so controversial about this event; it was a beautiful gesture by a beautiful man. If anyone could be seen as a great Christian, I think it would be the late Pope John Paul II. May he rest in peace.
CHRISTINE: I now know why our churches have emptied. We are no longer strong.
SHUKOUR: I believe there is no such thing in the Koran as a directive to kill Jews.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, there are directives in the Koran for what is apparently murder, both toward the Jew and the Christian. Often castigated as infidels or idolaters, the language is that of intolerance. Reconciliation is only recommended if one’s Judaism or Christianity is renounced for Islam. Radical Islam stresses such passages as below and does not cower from using violence for its ends:
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
[3.85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
[5.33-34] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (This literally means, convert or die! When Pope Benedict XVI recently recommended that world Islam denounce such violence, millions of protestors chanted and displayed signs, “Kill the Pope!”)
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.60] And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah’s way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.
[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand. (This is sometimes translated as, “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.”)
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! (Literally this is interpreted as “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”)
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[22.19-22] These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads. With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. And for them are whips of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning. (Here torture against Jews and Christians is recommended.)
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. (This is sometimes translated as, “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.”)
SHUKOUR: Do you know that most of the prophets of Islam were Jews that include Jesus a.s., Moses a.s., etc.
FATHER JOE: No, I did not know that and the reason is simple, it is a lie. Moses and Jesus are embraced and reinterpreted by Islam, but they did not preach or teach the dictates of Islam. Islam was only founded by Muhammad in 622 AD. Although he argued that his was a restoration or purification of Judaism, historical research shows this contention cannot be sustained. Islam represented something new, although with many borrowed elements. Angered when Christian monks uncharitably expelled him as stupid from their community, Muhammad set off to create his own religion. He combined elements of the various tribal religions and their gods with that of the Jews and Christians. The majority of converts to Islam in its first days came from polytheistic tribal religions. A large number of deities were worshipped, including that of the moon and the goddess of the sun. Christians and Jews were initially invited into the movement, but Muhammad’s so-called revelations became increasingly antithetical to their beliefs and practices.
SHUKOUR: In the Koran, a chapter is devoted solely to Jesus a.s.’ mother, Mariam or Mary who happens to be Jewish.
FATHER JOE: Salvation comes from the Jews. Mary was a Jewish maiden. Muslims accept the Catholic teaching of her as a virgin giving birth to Jesus. However, despite the teachings of Christ and that of the apostles, they reject that he is both God and Savior. Jesus is much more than a prophet. He is the Way and the Truth and the Life. Muhammad could never get his head around the Trinity. Indeed, the Koran errs in its description of the Trinity as believed by Christians.
SHUKOUR: No mention of Muhammad s.a.w’s mother. We, Muslims should be angry that Muhamad s.a.w’s mother was not mentioned and considered to be the greatest mother and woman for Muslims to follow instead of Mary.
FATHER JOE: Muhammad was purported raised early on by a nurse. Halima. As a baby, Muhammad seemed to have epileptic seizures. It was feared that he was demon possessed. His mother took him back but then quickly died and he was passed off to his grandfather. Evidently, there is not much one can say about his mother. However, Muhammad had access to the Christian gospels. Luke especially, spoke a great deal about Mary. Such becomes a source text for Muhammad’s reworking.
SHUKOUR: But we Muslims accepted wholeheartedly and loved and revered Jesus a.s.’s mother to be followed especially in the concept of motherhood and the excellent characteristics of a woman accepted by God!
FATHER JOE: Yes and no, for while Muslims love and respect Mary to a certain degree, they would not understand her as the chief of the saints in offering intercession, and the full significance of the Catholic dogmas.
SHUKOUR: The Koran also mentioned that since Christians and Jews are peoples of the book; that we, Muslims, should engage them in the kindest manner and that Muslims should engage them in dialogues in a friendly manner.
FATHER JOE: Yes, there are places in the Koran where such sentiments are expressed. But then they are spoiled by sections espousing forced conversions and violence. Interpretation of the Koran is problematical. Since it is not consistent, some authorities argue that the later harsher stipulations overrule or abrogate the earlier statements for friendship. Unlike the Bible, where we see progressive revelation realized in Christ where the primitive harshness of the Old Testament is replaced with the admonition for love and mercy in the New, the Koran seems to grow more intolerant as Muhammad became increasingly frustrated and unsatisfied. Further, while as a priest I can show human respect to Muslims, Catholics neither believe that Muhammad was a prophet nor that the Koran was inspired or from God. This statement alone would earn a Christian (or Jew) imprisonment and maybe the death sentence in certain Islamic strongholds.
SHUKOUR: My dear friends, Muslims also revered Jesus a.s. and Muslim children were told fascinating stories about Jesus a.s., his birth, his mission etc.
FATHER JOE: Yes, and Christians would judge the refashioned stories as largely fiction.
SHUKOUR: Muslims revered Jesus a.s. second to Muhammad and the only difference with Christian belief is that Muslims believed that Jesus a.s. never dies on the cross but was taken up into heaven by God as God loved Jesus a.s. so much that he (God) did not want Jesus a.s. to suffer the torture.
FATHER JOE: Christians regard this as both as unsubstantiated and as blasphemous. We regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but not as a prophet. Christians understand Jesus as a divine person with a complete human nature. Jesus suffers his passion and death as his great redemptive work to save us from our sins. Further, we believe that Jesus Christ conquered the grave by rising from the dead, ascending to the Father and now sits on his right hand, and that he sent his Holy Spirit to inspire and to protect his Church. Islam rejects the entire kerygma of salvation as understood by Catholics.
SHUKOUR: Muslims believe that Jesus a.s. is still in heaven and are eagerly waiting for him (Jesus a.s.) to return in order to bring peace in the “now troubled world” of ours.
FATHER JOE: Catholics believe that Jesus is in heaven but that as God he cannot be limited to heaven. We believe, as the true Scriptures and the sacred traditions of the Church teach; that he is present in the gathered assembly and Church; he is present in the Word proclaimed; he is present in his priests; and he is present in his sacraments and the Eucharist.
SHUKOUR: And also, Muslims do believe in the Bible brought by Jesus a.s. as words of God. It is believed as a holy book and is one of the cornerstones of the faith of Islam that include the Koran, Torah etc.
FATHER JOE: No, Muslims do not believe in the Bible. They approve of elements only. They place the authority of the Koran over that of the Bible.
SHUKOUR: That which is taught in the Bible, Torah, etc. is also contained in the Koran as a full guidance of a way of life approved by God!
FATHER JOE: There are purloined elements of the Bible in the Koran, as well as from the now defunct tribal religions which Muhammad encountered. However, the Koran rewrites, subtracts and adds to the biblical testimony.
SHUKOUR: My dear friends, I’m just sharing with you a bit about Islam, the Koran and about the Muslims so that we can avoid a misunderstanding.
FATHER JOE: I can well appreciate your effort, but from my perspective, and I say this respectfully, the misunderstanding is yours.
EYNAR: Is it so hard to understand? He was a real Muslim in his heart. To kiss the Koran is more than to accept it. So Christians, are you more clever and faithful than him? I really love him as a Muslim.
FATHER JOE: Really, it is not so hard to understand. There is no such thing as a “Muslim in his heart,” just a recognition by the Pope that the one God of Christians is the one God worshipped by Muslims. The Pope taught and lived the Catholic faith. His witness is part of the public record. As a Muslim you can love the late Pope. But while he also displayed human respect, he professed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He was the visible head of the Church established by Jesus. He believed in the Trinity, and thus that Jesus is divine and human.
CHUCK: I was fascinated with your collected, inspiring discussion and explanation of Christian teachings. My intent is to educate myself on the truths of Islam as my son has recently become fascinated with a young Muslim girl. I am torn by the impulse to protect him from becoming complacent in his religion in an effort to win her affection. On the other hand, he has been raised to love and accept all people. Although their relationship is still in its infancy, can you say something about serious relationships between a Muslim young woman with religious parents and a Christian young man with the same? Mind you that I have received advice from other Christians to “stop the relationship immediately.”
FATHER JOE: The Archdiocese of Washington tried to impose a moratorium on Catholic-Muslim weddings a number of years ago. Given that such marriages have an extremely high failure rate, as much as 90%, such relationships are very problematical. I would advise against such dating. Respecting practicing Muslims and having romantic relationships must be distinguished. The former is admirable, the latter is precarious. It is best not to allow such things to heat up. If the young lady wants to convert to Christianity that would change the dynamics in their favor; however, she might face alienation from her family. Indeed, in some countries a conversion of this sort could bring imprisonment, torture or even death.
JESSICA:
How can the “Vicar of Christ’s” actions be justified? The Quran, Surah 4:157 it states:
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
He kissed a book that undermines all of Christianity. Without the Death and Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST there is no Christianity or Catholicism. Or for that matter no “Vicar of Christ.” And this was done by a man who claims to be infallible? And yes I do sound upset, because I was Catholic, I went through RCIA twice. Two times because I wanted to learn as much as I could before I agreed to accept the teachings of Catholicism. Given the history of the church, etc. there was a lot to accept. But John Paul II’s actions were…. I can understand him wanting to make peace with the Iraqi peoples, or stepping into a Mosque, even accepting a Quran. But kissing the Quran? No. And no I do not believe that he is Muslim, or accepted Islam. I believe he is Catholic. But he sinned. He went against GOD. The one question that I ask is WWJD?
FATHER JOE:
It seems that upon this question I must continually return to cover old ground. No Christian contests that the Koran is a non-Christian book which speaks against many of the tenets of our faith. Not only does it deny the redemptive work of Christ but also his divinity. Further, despite an inconsistency in its remarks, there are sections which disparage Christians and admit violence against them for purposes of conversion. It is quite clear from the late Pope’s books, letters and talks that he believed and taught the Christian kerygma. That is why there is silliness to such debates as this. The question that anti-Catholic fundamentalists and sedevacantist traditionalists ignore is this: Given that the Pope is a Christian, why did he kiss the book? It was no action of apostasy. Rather, it was a gesture of respect and benignity to his visitors and world Islam. Any legitimate answer brings us back to the fact that the Pope is both a religious leader and a head of state. Christians must seek to live in peace with the world’s one billion plus Muslims. What would you have had the Pope do, throw the book back into the faces of his guests? Would you have preferred that he spat upon it? While it may not be our custom, gifts are traditionally kissed. Men even kiss men in parts of the Middle East and Orient. Place yourself for a moment into the cultural setting of the Islamic representatives. The Koran signified their greatest treasure. It stood for them and their identity as a people. The Pope’s gesture said to them, that despite our differences and difficult past history, we love you and want to live in peace with you. The tactics of the past meant both adversity and bloodshed. What would Jesus do? While we can argue prudential actions, I think he would seek the same aims as the Holy Father. The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. What would Jesus do? I think that in the Pope we have already seen it. However, modern day Pharisees and scribes are aghast and filled with hypocritical rebuke and disdain. Just as Jesus was rejected by his own for association with tax collectors, sinners and gentiles; the Holy Father was slandered for reaching out to the great historical enemies of Christianity. As an aside, your comment confuses infallibility with impeccability. Within certain constraints, and regarding faith and morals, Popes are infallible but not necessarily sinless. The Popes even have priest confessors.
If you were a convert who has since left Catholicism, then you apparently could not think and believe with the mind of the Church on other matters, too. I will keep you in prayer that you might one day return to the safe harbor of faith… before it is too late. We know how you feel about the Koran, but I would urge you to read the writings of the late Pope and his successor. You might take special benefit from the Bible, particularly the Gospels, and the universal catechism. The latter work was promulgated under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Since you have spent time reading the Koran, you should at least spend a little time reading the Church’s books. It is funny in a way. You condemn the Pope for kissing the outside of a book while you evidently opened the Koran and read a portion of it. The latter was once an offense given that the Koran was on the Index of Forbidden Books. What would Jesus do? Jesus will never abandon (as you have) the Church that he founded.
Here is a picture of me and the Knights of Columbus who set up 721 crosses that represent the children lost to abortion in one hour of one work day. This MEMORIAL OF THE INNOCENTS was set up at Holy Family Church in Mitchellville in 2009 and every year since then. We often have it up until the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We received a lot of support although there were a few complaints. One lady argued against putting such a thing up at Christmas time. I explained that Advent and Christmas was the perfect time. During Advent we recall the Christ-child in the womb and on Christmas he is born. We are reminded that every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. Another person argued that it was insensitive as she was a pro-choice Catholic. I told her that she was deceived. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christian; abortion attacks the central mystery of the Incarnation. Abortion is murder and as such it is a repudiation of Christ’s Gospel of Life.
One of my favorite memories is working with the American Life League back in 2005 and the CRUSADERS FOR LIFE. Here is a reposting of the news around that event at my old parish, Holy Spirit Church:
A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington 2005
A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in “Defense of the Catholic Church” and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the “right to life” cause, this group of remarkable crusaders was purportedly banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader
The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such “public” stands) take it upon themselves to receive Holy Communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that some of the nation’s shepherds have chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians. While they were able to find lodging in the city, they attended 9:00 AM Mass at Holy Spirit Church on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards. I contacted the archdiocese’s Pro-Life Office several weeks earlier about the matter to insure a level of approbation and to insure proper discretion. (Although the ads pained him, to his credit, Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese’s rules against participation in partisan politics– they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church’s shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance was SK Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a fourth degree Knight of Columbus and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas were long-time pro-life volunteers and were involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they were not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.
ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish
May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.
DISCUSSION
FRANK: News releases indicate that the Church after Vatican II had converted the Kennedys and other Catholic politicians into believing that the liberal backing of the culture of death is acceptable.
FATHER JOE: What news releases were these? Cite them; I would like to read further. As far as I recall, John Kennedy was chastised by churchmen for his liberal response about how little his faith would inform his work as president. As for the other Kennedys and the issue of abortion, I fail to see how Vatican II can be blamed for their pro-abortion stances. I have read and studied all the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents. Nothing comes to mind that would condone such thinking against the Gospel of Life. Are we throwing mud again? Give me specifics, please.
FRANK: Having attended the seminaries after Vatican II where the divinity of Christ was challenged, as well as the papacy, and all that was to be infallible before the “Catholic reformation” of 1962-1965; what is your take on recent developments and the continued blasphemies to this day condoned by the Church where the USCCB still can’t come to a consensus to deny our Lord to baby-killing Catholic politicians?
FATHER JOE:
Certainly there was a heightened stress upon the humanity of Christ in many theological schools after Vatican II. However, I do not recall ever being taught that Jesus was not a divine Person.
Fr. Patrick Granfield taught my class on the papacy at Catholic University and his lectures defended the Holy Father’s authority with a great deal of explanation.
Those things that were changed were not deemed infallible but rather mutable accidentals. This thinking was even shared by Pope Pius XII prior to Vatican II on matters like the prehistoric generation of human beings and the liturgy.
A revision of the liturgy was in the working stages going back to the 1930′s and 40′s. The reformed liturgy we have now has lasted a few decades and will probably remain for many more, although with the old liturgy alongside and with continuing adaptations by the Holy See. We have had to suffer the experimental phase, but Pope Benedict XVI said that such has come to an end.
As for the passivity of churchmen in reference to Holy Communion and the standing of pro-abortion politicians, such is also not attributable to Vatican II. The Church has gone through periods in the past where it was the lackey for parliaments, kings and queens. The Popes made clear statements from the 1600′s onward that slavery was detestable and should be abandoned. However, Catholics owned slaves in the colonies and later in the United States of America. The Jesuit landowners of Maryland had slaves. Bishops were often mute on the subject, except for admonishing their baptism in the faith. Dissent is not something new but something very old.
PADRE XYZ:
Father Joe, Your welcome to the pro-life young people did not go unnoticed. I know it cost you personally. I think you can be rude and you definitely lack tact, but it did take some nerve to stand virtually alone and make the challenge against silence or business as usual. You honestly shared your heart to the bishops and your brother priests.
You asked…
Would you give communion to Nazis who promoted the murder of Jews?
Would you give communion to White Supremacists who incited the lynching of Blacks?
Why should we prize the life in the womb any less or their murders as somehow less grievous?
Silence befell all the big guns. You lost a lot of friends that day. If you had career hopes in the church, they were suddenly shattered. Hushed and whispered voices were the only response, “How do we shut this priest up?”
You became an embarrassment. I could not do what you did. You angered a lot of people. You took a promise of obedience and you were reprimanded for your slight as an act of betrayal. Some of us witnessed it, although you were left unnamed.
You changed after that, became quiet, even sullen. It was as if something died in you. You gained weight.
I know you were disappointed in me. But to be frank, I was afraid. Who are we to question the shepherds over us? What happens if we tell the majority of Catholic politicians they are no longer welcome at the altar?
Take care of yourself.
FATHER JOE: I was going to erase this comment. I still might. If you are who I think you are, email me. Peace!
(I am not really brave. I speak my mind and I love the Church. When all is said and done, I do as I am told. I am the Church’s man. Some would contend that I am too conservative or right wing. But how can we be too committed to the Gospel of Life? Every day I work to control my temper. As long as I can remember, I have been very passionate about our faith and its values. Am I ambitious? Like most priests, it is nice to know that one is appreciated and that one’s talents are acknowledged. However, by comparison to most priests that I know, my rating would be very low. It is not false humility but the truth when I say that I count myself as the least of my brothers. As for the bishops, it must be a frightful responsibility they carry. Who would want it? They are criticized from every side. It is easy for us to judge, but we do not walk in their shoes. Pray for priests and pray, especially for our bishops. They are Christ’s apostles in the world today.)
DR: I nominated you for a pro-life blog award (FATHER JOE Blog).
JOHN: Fr. Joe, abortion is murder. These babies can’t speak for themselves. Other bishops have stood up and said priests should not give communion to pro-choice politicians as they have the power to stop the murder (Bishop Burke-former bishop of St. Louis archdiocese and Bishop Finn of Kansas City diocese, for instance.) I’m glad priests like you and Fr. Frank Pavone speak out on this issue. It’s a serious matter and it should be treated as such. Thanks for all you do.
LENBER:
“President Bush has had a very cozy relationship with the Vatican, and set a presidential record by meeting with the Pope six times.”
Very cozy indeed, sometimes for the good, and at other times for utterly and criminally contra-productive [things], such as siding with Bush in Criminal Wars (for the Vatican just Abortion is a Crime) or siding with Israel on their Criminal Occupation of Palestine.
All Thanks to Vatican II Double Crossers.
FATHER JOE: I am not sure I would coin the Bush Doctrine or International efforts in such negative terms. However, as for the Pope, you seem to be terribly deceived. The Vatican opposed the invasion of Iraq. Tarek Aziz (the former president) was a Catholic. He made a retreat in Rome and saw the Pope (John Paul II) the week prior to the invasion. The state of Israel is also not entirely happy that the Vatican, again and again, sides with Palestinians (who are largely Islamic but include an ancient Christian community). Formal recognition and diplomatic ties were held up because of Vatican concerns for the Palestinian people. The late Arafat, at the end of his life, remarked that he saw the Vatican as his ally in the conflict for Palestinian rights. Zionism was condemned by both the UN and by the Church. Arafat used to attend the Christmas Mass in Bethlehem with his wife (who is a Christian). The Catholic Church is no one’s stooge, not for Bush and not for Israel. The Holy Father (both JPII and BXVI) has spoken to President Bush, (he meets a lot of people) and they share much in regard to the unborn, however on matters like the Middle East and capital punishment, there is a great divide.
MICHAEL:
Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Think of the millions of lives that were snuffed out in this “free” country.
May God have mercy on us!
GENUS LILIUM:
I am completely against abortions. I have children and I have learned that some vaccinations are grown off of human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue, not to mention all the other chemicals, heavy metals, and animal products. That seems like it might be a problem to me. Now that I know this, would it be wrong for me to continue to vaccinate my children? Is it just a money scheme? I really don’t want that stuff in my kids.
Today’s news included the story about a stoning of an adulterous couple, 20 year old Sadiqa and her lover 28 year old Qayum. Qayum had left his wife for her and the two were caught at a friend’s house by the Taliban. This past Sunday, before a crowd of 150 men, they were stoned to death in the Kunduz providence of northern Afghanistan. Before the fall of Taliban rule such stonings were common. Such brutality shocks us but it speaks volumes about the mentality of the enemy and their brutal religious beliefs. (Take note, we are are told that such is a distortion of Islam.)
Despite dark moments in history, by contrast, right-minded Christians would censure wrongdoing but pay heed to the witness of our Lord.
Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” (John 8:2-11)
Our nation seems to have moved to the opposite extreme, excusing all sorts of sexual depravity and the violation of the marriage bond. Adultery, fornication and sodomy were once universally regarded as crimes. Half of the 50 states of the U.S. still regard adultery as a criminal offense. Not in your state? Last I heard it was illegal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. However, along with the other immoral acts, it is rarely prosecuted. Adultery is still a violation of the military code of conduct and can earn a court martial.
Adultery was defined in some states as actual sexual congress and in others, like Virginia, as “lewd” or “lascivious” associations. I recall a few years ago the authorities used a fornication charge to get a court order to raid a house of a suspected drug pusher— sneaky! Possible penalties for adultery are as severe as a life sentence (Michigan), two years imprisonment (Pennsylvania) or in my own state of Maryland, a $10 fine. Given the money problems in the state, I am surprised the fine is not raised and the law enforced. Just as with the speed and red light cameras which catch offenders for hefty fines, could we not place discrete anti-smooching cameras in parks, near pools, at bars and maybe even in bedrooms? Charging per each offense, I would suspect given the lifestyle and lack of commitment today, the money would come flooding in! [I hope you guys know that I am kidding.]
How far must we go to insure public morality? Who determines today what is right and wrong?
The Archdiocese of Washington has been forced to follow the path of Boston in terminating (or in this case transferring) its foster care and adoption services. I have dear friends who received their boy and girl through Catholic Charities. It was always an impetus of the Church to insure that the children went to good, wholesome and loving homes of faith. The District of Columbia City Council refused to refer the matter to a public referendum and denied religious exemptions to the new same-sex marriage law. Gay advocates will no doubt argue that the Church is abandoning the poor. The truth is that the Church was forced out of a valuable service to children and potential parents by the city government. Our services and personnel are being handed over to the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) which has roots in the Baptist Church. How is it that they can do what we cannot? Does this mean that children for whom we formerly cared are now vulnerable to adoption by homosexuals?
Here is a portion of the press release from the Archdiocese:
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington transitioned its foster care and public adoption program in the District of Columbia to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on February 1, 2010. Catholic Charities remains committed to continuing to serve the vulnerable of the District of Columbia through the 82 programs the agency operates in the region.
Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same sex marriage law.
This is the only program Catholic Charities anticipates will be impacted by the law.
The Archdiocese had a choice to make, collaborate with sin or remain steadfast behind the moral teachings of the Catholic faith. It is a sad day. Our adoption services was a wonderful complement to our pro-life efforts. It demonstrated that we were both about saving the child in the womb and about helping children already born and potential parents to find each other. Where there was once a partnership between the City and the Church; the City government has now chosen to create an adversarial relationship.
Do we see here the latest faces of evil? While a certain anti-Catholicism has long been fashionable in the U.S., these bigots pull no punches in attacking the divinely instituted hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church: Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Connecticut. Why? It is because these gay men hate the Church for her position against same-sex civil unions. More about this below.
Catholics must stand together against this attack upon the nature of the Church!
The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.
This is not Red China with its puppet “patriotic” Catholic Church; but that is precisely what certain legislators in Connecticut must think. A bill has been put forward that would directly interfere with the internal activities and structure of the Catholic Church. Other churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are ignored; the Catholic Church alone (at least for now) has been targeted by name. Bill 1098 would strip Catholic bishops of their direct oversight over their parishes. The state would force the bishops to hand their jurisdiction to an elected board of directors. Clergy would not be allowed on this board, only laymen and laywomen. The bishop or his representative could sit with the 7 to 13 members, but he would have NO VOTE.
The overall authority of bishops over their priests and congregations comes from the apostles and the charge given them by Jesus. This legislation rejects the Catholic stance and forces a reformed Protestant form of government upon the Catholic Church. The Church rejected boards of controlling trustees over parishes after the Revolutionary War. Only the Protestant reformers, and not all of them, suggested that the bishops be stripped of their authority. Such a measure would reduce bishops to figureheads, good for periodic Confirmations but nothing more. Pastors would be hired, fired and treated as employees by these boards. Pastors would no longer be true pastors at all. I am sure the Vatican would never have any of it. But what would happen then, a forced schism where the legitimate bishops would govern from exile and their priests minister under tents while the state flunkies took over Church properties and changed policies? Such a view by which the laity rules the Church has been condemned as heretical by the Magisterium. We each have our role to play and the bishops should not be stripped of theirs. How could anyone in government dare think they could rewrite the system of governance for the Catholic Church? This is an obscenity to the freedom of religion!
The diocese of Bridgeport has explained the situation as follows:
“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.
This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.
This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.
The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.
The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.
For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.
We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:
Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov
Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com
We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.
It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.
It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.
It is time for us to defend our Church!”
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is found in what is properly called the “Bill of Rights”. It contains these clear words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This bill violates the rights of the Catholic Church and the faith of her good people. It is also unconstitutional and we can only hope that good sense prevails. But, even if we win this one; what about the next attack or the one after that? The Church has a hierarchical structure that comes down to us from Christ’s institution. This legislation is anti-Catholic bigotry at its best. Note that we alone are singled-out for such treatment. It is to be forced upon us because the Church refuses to be silent about such evils as same-sex unions and abortion. Do not think for one moment that these boards would be composed of good practicing Catholics who kiss the hands of their priest each Sunday. No, these would be the dissenters taking charge.
No doubt the scandal of a few bad priests and allegations of abuse weighs in the background for many people, but the rationale given here is that the bishops and Church cannot manage their own financial house. Bishop Lori rightly finds this reasoning quite fantastic, given their high degree of accountability and good management. By contrast, the State of Connecticut cannot close a one billion dollar deficit and the full story will never be told upon the government waste and corruption. The real reason for this Bill is hatred of the Catholic Church and resentment about the tough moral stands she has taken. It is no accident that the day before it was submitted, the same-sex marriage Bill was to be heard. This Bill which focuses on the juridical structure of the Catholic Church is only a thinly veiled attempt to silence our voice. Note that other churches are not targeted for such take-over. The two main proponents are radically involved with the homosexual agenda and hate the Church for refusing to pander to perversity. There can be no doubt, these men are out to destroy the Catholic Church as we know her.
Imagine for a moment what these boards might quickly put on the agenda if they should take charge:
Their first objective would be achieved: approval of same-sex couples, blessings over them and wedding ceremonies.
Next would come condom and pill distribution from Catholic Charities and training sessions for CCD kids and parish youth groups.
Parish pro-life groups would be disowned and replaced with Planned Parenthood or NARAL promoters.
Married priests would be invited back, especially after orthodox celibates are fired.
In short order, women would be ordained and received as priests in the parishes.
Divorce and remarriage would be permitted.
The Protestant “open” communion table would be established, welcoming everyone for communion, even your Buddhist friends.
ACT-UP and Dignity would operate so-called gay-friendly activities using parish funds and property.
MIKE LAWLOR ATTACKS CATHOLICISM AT GAY MARRIAGE HEARING:
The late Pope John Paul II told the young people at World Youth Day that they had to remain strong in the faith. He prophesied that many of them would face great persecution and maybe even suffer martyrdom. While he worked for a better tomorrow and reconciliation with groups which had historic grievances with Catholicism; nevertheless, when asked about the future he said he had a vision of BLOOD.
Many people assert that here in America we are safe to worship as we please. However, religion is about more than ritual, it is also about ideas and activism. Already there are politicians and organizations who oppose basic ideas and activities which touch core tenets of Catholicism. The question of the war aside, the Bush Administration was a momentary respite, an oasis in a storm that was looming ever closer and closer. Now that Obama is president, I suspect we shall find the ark of Peter frequently assailed and with few earthly friends to lend assistance. Catholics in the pews have grown timid to defend and help. They must be awakened from their moral slumber. As in many nations, certain Catholics have become the Church’s worst enemies. Even here in the United States, many Catholic pro-abortion politicians in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in the Executive branch oppose the Church’s efforts for the Gospel of Life. State governments are also turning against us. Many of these efforts are fueled by the big money that organizations like Planned Parenthood can muster. Add to this the general enmity that the ACLU and other such entities have against us, and well, this fight is going to have casualties.
Pretty much every year there is an effort here in Maryland to force Catholic hospitals to do abortion referrals and to distribute contraception, even if abortifacient. So far we have been on the winning side, but for how much longer? Maryland bishops have said they would close the hospitals before allowing any collaboration in murder and sin. The Church in Los Angeles took heat about their insurance plans for employees and was pressured to add same-sex partners to the mix. There is also growing insistence that artificial contraception be included in health plans, despite the Church’s view that such practices constitute mortal sin. The Church in Boston had to shut down their adoption program operated through Catholic Charities because the authorities insisted that they would also have to adopt children out to homosexual couples. No one thought the Archbishop would take such a step, but he had the courage to make the right move. The new president has made no secret that he opposes any “conscience clause” for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who want nothing to do with abortion, embryonic destruction and artificial contraception. Stripped of legal protection, many pro-life professionals and Catholics will have their licenses stripped and be removed from their jobs.
Discussion About the Topic
REALIST:
You are certifiably crazy, and are scaring people away from the Church. The proposals you have made should this law pass are INSANE. Ridiculous! I’m ashamed you are still a priest. Have some honor and speak about the issues rationally instead of just spewing anti-Obama hatred. More flies with honey…
FATHER JOE:
I would rather be a fool for Christ and have you think I am crazy than to be you on the Judgment Day. I will pray for your immortal soul.
And by the way, I do not hate Obama; I am just upset that his administration is so set on destroying the unborn. Did you hear the news today? He is reversing Bush’s policies on the use of embryos for research. Of course, I doubt you care, except as another proponent for murder and perversion. Yes, I suspect you will be very happy with this administration.
MICHAEL:
Fr. Joe, on the subject of the Church and the government, I wanted to ask a question about the tax exemption status and the Catholic Church. There has been a black minister on You Tube. He has been openly and severely critical of Obama before and after the election. I was unable to find his email address, because I wanted to send a message asking him if his church lost its tax exemption status as a result of his many verbal tirades. According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in partisan politics, including endorsing candidates or political parties or helping a candidate win an election. To me, tax exemption status makes the church political when she should be entirely spiritual. Priests shouldn’t be afraid to mention names before or after an election IF those in question commit to harming society in any way. We can’t continue to allow our government to tell us how to evangelize or to tell us to shut up in the face of wrongdoing. The church is God’s living voice on Earth. I wonder how our Catholic brothers and sisters in other parts of the world deal with this issue?
FATHER JOE:
It is argued that many black churches are in the hip pocket of the Democrat party. There is no denying that candidates and politicians even speak at services and are endorsed from the pulpit. The so-called political RIGHT is castigated as Republican and is often challenged on their political efforts. Catholic churches are frequently threatened and for the most part remain silenced out of fear that tax exemption and other favors might be lost. We are allowed to talk about issues, but not candidates or politicians. Meanwhile, everyone votes for Obama. There seems a disconnect with moral issues and religious liberty.
JIM OF BOWIE:
Father, thank you so much for speaking out on this; we need to wake up the people as to what is going on in Washington and in many state capitals. The Church is under attack and it is only going to get worse. I have only seen this issue covered on yours and Father Z’s blog. Hopefully more blogs, priests and bishops will speak out. Laura Ingraham did a report on her radio show today with Raymond Arroyo. So maybe EWTN will be on top of it. Let us pray for Bishop Lori.
KAY:
As I read about proposed legislation like this, I am inclined to think that it is so bizarre, so un-American, and so bigoted, that it surely would not be taken seriously. However, more and more often in this country, we are seeing just this kind of craziness get voted into law. Maybe it is an insidious movement to propose the bizarre without much hope that it can be passed. But the publicity surrounding the effort causes more and more people to become desensitized and eventually the bizarre and un-American seems perfectly logical and desirable. It is so sad to see this happening to our country. Thank God for prayer as a resource because I think that is our only hope.
DON:
The smoke of Satan is mixed with the roar of lions over at the coliseum. Lent is a good time to pick up your crosses and follow Christ (to the State Capitol) all you Ct voters (only the ones that didn’t vote for the pro-infanticide president please.)
A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:
Unfortunately, those who voted for Obama and the Democratic Party only encourage this sort of behavior. They have been seduced by style over substance.
We can expect more of this stuff. They have unlimited resources. They have the resources of the government. They will do this until we are bled dry and finally give up.
KARL:
This legislation seems to me to be an open and shut hate crime and should be prosecuted as such using the state’s own laws. It would simply take a prosecutor with some chutzpah. It should not be a surprise, however, that the Catholic Church is under such withering attack; she belongs to Christ, even in her sinfulness. Perhaps those who claim Catholicism unworthily will come to their senses or leave it, making who are left more faithful.
A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:
The attorney who has encouraged this (Tom Galagher) is not only a Knight of Columbus, but is affiliated w/ VOTF. Talk about your 5th Columns!
FATHER JOE:
Tom Gallagher is not only a Knight of Columbus, but also belongs to the Order of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. These guys have taken and run with his ideas, but did he intend to so thoroughly cut the bishop out of the equation?
LADY GODLESS:
I’ve found some info about SB 1098 from the article in the Stamford Advocate… this proposal was previously introduced by a Republican at the behest of a citizen named Tom Gallagher, one of the people who asked McDonald and Lawlor to submit the proposal this time around:
“Democrats have crossed the line between church and state,” GOP Chairman Christopher Healy said.
“But last year a Republican, former Rep. Dolly Powers of Greenwich, pursued similar legislation. Powers said she submitted a proposal on behalf of constituent Tom Gallagher, a driving force behind the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee.”
“If a constituent has an issue and they bring it to any legislator, that’s part of your job,” Powers said.
McDonald and Lawlor point out that they have submitted this idea for discussion on behalf of a group of their constituents, but they themselves do not necessarily advocate adopting the proposed legislation.
SB 1098 is the result of a real and bitter conflict ‘within’ the Catholic Church, and is not the result of a conflict between the Catholic Church and outsiders:
“Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he scheduled the bill for a public hearing Wednesday because he was asked to do so by southwestern Connecticut Catholics, including members of Darien and Greenwich churches where large sums of money have disappeared.”
“At St. John, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who’s serving a three-year prison term, stole $1.4 million from 1999 to 2006 to finance a luxury lifestyle, including a Florida condo, he shared with his gay lover.”
“At St. Michael two years ago, the Rev. Michael Moynihan quit as pastor in a financial scandal. About $2.1 million in parish contributions was taken off the books in two accounts and at least $400,000 was diverted to the priest for his personal use, according to the diocese.”
Connecticut already has corporate law that applies specifically to the Catholic Church, and the current statute has been in place since the 1950s. This is not a new thing. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that the currently existing law may have constitutional problems itself.
Please keep this in your prayers. Also remember the promise of our Lord to St. Peter that the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against His Church.
Make no mistake about it. It’s not going to happen in Bridgeport or in any other diocese anywhere in the world. History has proven this true time and time again within the last two thousand years. Every attempt has always ended in failure. The Roman Empire tried repeatedly to destroy the Catholic Church and failed miserably each and every time. This time will be NO DIFFERENT.
GHOST:
McDonald says he introduced the bill at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien because their former pastor, Rev. Michael Jude Fay, stole over a period of years as much as $1.4 million from funds donated by parishioners. Rev. Fay was convicted in 2007. He used the money to fund a life of luxury with his boyfriend. He rented limousines for himself and his mother (totaling $130,000 in costs) but also drove a Jaguar, stayed at elegant hotels (like the Ritz Carlton, Hotel de Paris and Four Seasons), bought expensive jewelry (from Cartier) and imported Italian clothing. He also had membership at a sports club and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on home furnishings and meals. More than $20,000 was spent to mark his 25th anniversary of ordination. The robber priest even spent the money on a Florida condo where he would hang out with his boyfriend. Diocesan auditors discovered the scandal. Half the money was hidden in a secret bank account. In Greenwich, another priest, Rev. Michael Moynihan, resigned in January after an initial audit uncovered a half million dollars in church spending for which he could not account. It is not anti-Catholic to want parish money to be applied to the proper ends for which it is donated. However, the remedy is not to strip the bishops and pastors of their juridical standing and responsibilities.
Both Tom Galagher and Fr. Paul Lakeland, S.J. are progressives and arguably dissenters from accepted Catholic ecclesiology. It makes no difference that Galagher is a Knight, former parish trustee and missionary. As for Rev. Lakeland, our suffering Church knows many rebel priests, oops, excuse me, he is an ex-priest who broke his vows to get married. Lakeland is a defender of the theologian Roger Haight whose Christology was condemned by the Holy See and who has his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian removed. He would promote religious indifferentism and minimize the unique redemptive work of Christ for all humanity. Height would strip Christ of his authority and Lakeland would do something similar for the Catholic Church. Lakeland espouses both women priests and a Church operated by the laity (see his books, CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS and THE LIBERATION OF THE LAITY). The beans are spilt about Galagher over at TOPIX COMMENTS. No Spin Personality writes: “Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not ‘step down as a Trustee in 1999’ he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the ‘difference of opinion’ was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting. It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an ‘incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform’. Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church’s business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.”
Both Galagher and Lakeland are members of VOTF, an organization that often finds itself at odds with the Church and has a perspective on Church structure and the priesthood which conflicts with the Magisterium, particularly with the view of Pope Benedict XVI. What revisionists are not admitting publicly is that Church finances and administration often reflect the Church’s doctrinal views and moral positions. The person who controls the purse strings ultimately controls the whole show.
Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you.
The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism.
In other words, all those Democrats, Protestants, liberals, secularists, and gays that many people automatically started fulminating against are ~not~ the force behind this proposal.
Nor does SB 1098 indicate that blood is in the offing, or that anyone is out to martyr you, or that you will now be pressured to display portraits of Jesus that resemble President Obama instead of the currently preferred likeness of Kenny Loggins. What SB 1098 does indicate is that parishioners in certain Connecticut parishes feel that they’ve been cheated, and that they want redress.
Lady Godless said, “Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you. The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism. ”
I am NOT a Republican and right now I am ashamed to admit that both Gallagher and I are attorneys. Maybe though, he was sick the day they studied the First Amendment in first year law school Constitutional Law class. Gallagher may believe himself to be a devout Catholic, but if so, his knowledge of Catholicism is even more deficient than his knowledge of Constitutional Law.
I am outraged that because he cannot convince the Church that his way is “the Way,” Gallagher apparently decided to ask Big Brother to step in and remake the Church so that it would be more to the liking of Gallagher and his ilk.
Are we not to be concerned because this is just a “tiny” infringement of the First Amendment? Perhaps we should just chill until the government decides that the First Amendment needs to be done away with as not “progressive” enough.
As for Gallagher, “confession is good for the soul.”
NEED ANI PHONE:
Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.
FATHER JOE:
Pregnancy might be a health risk, but it is not unnatural or a disease. It is the perfectly natural result of having sexual intercourse.
The business about careers is false. I know men who changed their goals and took the jobs that immediately paid the bills for their children.
A woman might be ill, but if every sick mother killed her children to preserve her mental and physical health, we would not only have a lot of abortions but drowned and shot children as well.
If a healthy woman in her prime does not want her children, then give them up for adoption. I have a list of parents who would take them with no hesitation.
The bottom line has not changed. You can only say what you do because you do not believe the unborn child is a human being. Only fiendish monsters would argue that it is okay to murder children.
But wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about what you believe? After all, President Obama believes that living babies can be allowed to die from exposure and neglect after surviving an abortion… hum?
ANON:
With the exception of rape, the woman puts herself in the position of creating the “unwanted pregnancy.”
It is simply selfishness that is operative here.
Don’t make the false argument that “anti-abortion” legislation “targets” women. Face the truth that abortion is an excuse for selfish sexual gratification for women and IT TARGETS innocent children.
The important question that needs debate is whether you can keep that dime between your knees, sister and your partner in sexual satisfaction can have enough other interests to keep his mind off his own private parts and yours, as well.
Don’t blame the child, whom you created, for your lust.
I guess your precious job is more important than the job of the Catholic or other life-affirming person who will lose theirs because you had to have your abortifacients and they will not supply you with it!
You are no different, or less responsible, than the American with powdered nares whose demand for cocaine, to GET THEM OFF, provides the REASON for the drug cartel hit man to kill another border patrol agent, who gets in THEIR way of protecting THEIR “JOB”!
You are not PRO-CHOICE. You are a selfish brat who never learned self-control or the efficacy of placing the NEEDS of another over your WANTS!
LADY GODLESS:
Huh? Who are you talking to?
BOB:
I believe that “Anon” needs to DRASTICALLY cut back on the coffee!
ANON:
I have six children. The first child I had was the result of a relationship I had in college, before I was married. My plans were definitely put on hold. At that time in my life, I was encouraged by many to consider my “options.” After he was born, the measure of guilt I felt of actually considering those options effectively made me ill, and what is normally 3 day hospital stay for women who have given birth turned into a five day stay for me.
Once a child is created, there is no “choice” any longer, and those who believe that and act on it are in for true heartache.
Additionally, when I was pregnant with my 5th child, I was very ill. I had a condition which required surgery, which my doctors wanted to perform in my first trimester. My OB warned me about the potential harm to the baby and told me there was a very real possibility that the procedure could induce a miscarriage. Again, I was counseled by many to consider my “options.” If I knowingly did something that could produce a miscarriage, to me, that was a clean way of saying I might be choosing abortion. The 2nd trimester was safer for the baby, and though my plans were, again, interrupted by staying in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, I have an amazingly beautiful daughter who is healthy and well (and so am I).
God gives us children as a blessing- NOT A CURSE! As with everything else in life, sometimes those unexpected blessings require us to pick up our cross.
Abortion touches a chord with me, although I see the Church as paying more attention to abortion than it should, when more of its efforts should be towards marriages. Nevertheless, the post was directed towards NEED ANI PHONE who is typical of those who think of themselves first, their irresponsibility for creating the pregnancy, except in rape(which is STILL a wrong that cannot be answered with another (worse) wrong being pushed upon those who they DEMAND, join them in their crimes.
Her position and the defense of abortion is absurd. She should keep that dime between her legs and have the guy arrested and prosecuted who forces himself on her. Good riddance to him. To call him a pig would insult our hammy friends.
LADY DEE:
I am so grateful that such information is brought to the attention of the masses – good on you Father Joe! They say that what happens in America usually repeats itself in the United Kingdom up to 10 years later. Forewarned is forearmed! I truly believe that there are invidious persons buried deep inside our institutions – both religious and other – whose purpose is to take down anything which bands people together.
Why can’t Mr. Galagher, if he is so disaffected, count his true support by setting up his own group and fighting fairly and openly instead of using such poor fools as those named (McDonald and ?).
Am I missing something fundamental? How does Chris Smith justify interfering in Google’s business?
The decision by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who chairs a House subcommittee on Human Rights, to call for a February 16 hearing to examine the operating procedures of US internet companies in China, represents the first signs of what could become a serious backlash against Google and other internet companies in Washington that are perceived as capitulating to the Chinese government.
What are the hearings supposed to accomplish? Why not let Google incur the righteous wrath of the global market? Why should the government get involved?
Chris is a man of conviction who believes in justice and the right to life. He has even been critical of fellow Republicans who made too many compromises. I have heard him speak many times and have had several personal conversations with him, even on the steps of the Capitol (two women I know work in his office). He reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.
If he ran for President, I would probably vote for him.
Chris Smith is a wonderful pro-life politician who is very concerned about the issue of human rights. He wants to send a sign to the Internet business community that it should not collaborate with governments that seek to silence and to oppress their people.
Back in 2002, China blocked access to Google from Chinese computers and attempted to create its own search engine, with limited results. In return for access, Google has created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government.
Although not mentioned here, Chris Smith no doubt also wants to send a message to Microsoft (MSN) that they are not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censor their search engine for the Chinese and have even taken down Chinese BLOGs deemed political by the government. I read of one case recently where the information provided about the identity of the Blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. That means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the U.S. could lead to the imprisonment or even the torture and execution of men and women in China.
I would say that was pretty important and given that Chinese slave labor provides many of our goods today; it is doubtful that the business community left to itself would do anything about it.
Of course, it was our government that has permitted trade with China, despite human rights concerns … and Chris Smith is only one man.
NOTES:
CHINESE TRADE
Smith, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, continued, “Through the efforts of the Clinton Administration, we have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods from China. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China’s inexpensive labor market. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. If we can promote sanctions for video games and rock-and-roll, why can’t we do it to preserve human rights?”
CHINA & GOOGLE
“It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil,’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck,” said Smith, who has been a leading human rights advocate since being elected to Congress. “China’s policy of cutting off the free flow of information is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the rule of law. Many Chinese have suffered imprisonment and torture in the service of truth – and now Google is collaborating with their persecutors.”
GW’s old man, the first George Bush, would agree with arguments that it is better to allow unrestricted business cooperation with China. Although, it seems that we have become as dependent upon their goods as they are with our money. Many of the social changes about which we hoped have failed to materialize. As for myself, I would also argue for political and economic relations with them; but always with strings attached. Our treatment of Taiwan after the Nixon/Ford Administrations has always bothered me. As for Hong Kong, the British made a treaty with a China that no longer existed; they should have been given sovereignty. But those are my pet notions. While our country is no paragon of virtue, nations and the world community do have an obligation to insure that businesses and organizations do not trample upon basic human rights. Collaboration with evil makes one an accomplice, for which God will judge each and every one of us. Utilitarian arguments are out rightly rejected by the Catholic Church.
I recall the arguments about opening Western businesses to China when the first President Bush gave most favored status to China; and certainly no one wants to isolate China from the rest of the world. However, economics is the only wedge short of military intervention that we have with the Communists. Do we sacrifice human rights at the altar of consumerism and materialism, either of the Socialist or Capitalist variety?
This growing middle-class in China is still less than one percent of the population. Most of the wealth generated goes to a few hundred families among the upper Communist hierarchy. Middle-class in China translates to making between $3,000 to $12,000 a year, what would rate as the poverty level in the U.S. Many of these will themselves have a servant or maid that is paid $50 a month. 70% of the 1.3 billion population are peasants who earn about $100 a year!
Guess what? Finding computers in schools and coffee-houses, the majority of the bloggers and those questioning Chinese politics are from the poor! Religious persecution is still a predominate cause for Internet censorship and prosecution. This includes the Chinese who reject the Patriotic Catholic Church and accept the authority of the Pope. The Internet is giving people in China a voice to speak out about oppression. Big business left to itself does not care about this; even many in government do not. People who embrace the basic human values in government and business must work together, not only against oppression in lands like China, but also against the passivity and blindness of so many in the West.
I generally believe that government should not interfere with business; however, I qualify this with the exception of human rights. When Prell Shampoo a few years ago was purportedly adding human fetal material to shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved and asked questions. We have fair labor laws that try to preserve safety and dignity to workers. Products produced by companies must face safety requirements. Again and again, when it comes to human rights, governments and other organizations must get involved.
China might be on the other side of the globe. But they are people too with basic human rights and dignity. We should not enable, either through inactivity or secondary collaboration, those who would silence the voice of the poor, those yearning to be free.
A television news report announced that because of contracts with companies like Matel, 90% of all toys sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Autom Catholic Religious Goods catalogues advertise inexpensive articles, almost all from China. However, all of it is reserved to foreign export and domestic circulation would be regarded a crime. Heck, even my DVD Player has “Made in China” on the back.
Dollar Stores came into existence because of this trade. Other nations could step in, but there is no underestimating its vast scope.
Critics are right, while it would cost us, the U.S. could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence seems to become more pervasive. There may come a day when such an action would be too costly.
To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980’s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the U.S. was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produce them for us. When it came to clothing, many of us always looked for the “Union Label” and took pride in wearing shirts, pants, and dresses manufactured in the U.S. But the cost disparity became too much for the poor and the average working man. This started happening in the 1960’s. I recall my first concession to the trend when my mother bought me a new coat for school. It was the mid-1960’s and the coat’s label read, “This coat is manufactured by the free people of the Republic of SOUTH VIETNAM.” Evidently it was an effort to support our allies economically while in conflict with the Communist North. I wore that coat with pride, even though I was only in the fourth grade, because (in my mind) it symbolized freedom and justice.
By the way, there was an expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the U.S. They found that they were sold at Walmart carrying the designation, “Made in the U.S.A.” When challenged about this, the executives at Walmart said that there was nothing deceptive for while the clothes were of Chinese origin, the attached label was indeed, made in the Unites States.
Not deceptive? The label? And these are the people who are supposed to stand up for human rights and justice?
The dilemma about the Internet is just the newest wrinkle in this situation: how far do you collaborate with thugs to make a buck? Where arguments might be made that trade helps the poor and middle class of China; for an American or Western company to assist in the restriction of information and free speech of Chinese dissidents is something else. And to hand over information that leads to the arrest, imprisonment, and maybe torture of such people is the worst case scenario.
I am not utterly opposed to trade with China.
But I do have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocks religious sites like the Vatican and Free the Fathers and Blogs where men and women yearning to be free speak out.
The Chinese tried to create their own search engine back in 2002 and made a mess of things. We should not be helping them in this. It is a criminal act, at least in the eyes of God.
DISCUSSION
FATHER JOE:
I am not an isolationist. What one critic said to me was correct; we bargain with the devil every day.
We can hope that our relationships with the Red Chinese and Moslem extremists will make a difference; but we should never let down our guard and directly cooperate in human oppression. Communism is not dead, and instances of free enterprise can disappear tomorrow if the dragon awakens. Some of our so-called allies in the war against terror are themselves corrupt and oppress minorities, women and others. Is the pacified Westernized Islam that we see here at home the true faith of Mohammed; or is its genuine face really the Hamas and the extremism that we see in the Middle East and now parts of Africa and Asia?
Trade with China will not in itself prevent a new Cold War. Indeed, their military buildup is largely financed with our own money. Oil money in the Middle East can also translate into a fearful New World. I am not sure what we can do about much of this. Such questions will not be resolved by bloggers, but at least we have the freedom to speak, which some do not have. And Western and American companies should not help to silence voices.
I only wish people in all walks of life would more effectively engage these issues and that politicians would devise a clear plan about where our policies are taking us. We tend to be so short-sighted, instead of looking to the horizon.
ERIN:
I don’t disagree with the things you’ve posted either; in fact, I agree strongly with the statement that we should stand up for human rights, individually and as a country. However, I think if Google can get a working window to the internet into China, even with severe restrictions and censorship in place, isn’t it better than nothing? It’s a start – a way for the poor people of China to start looking around and seeing the possibilities of the internet. And hey, if the porn sites can so creatively sneak around our own censorship models and find ways to get their sites seen, can’t the Underground movements of China and other oppressed areas find ways to speak out and communicate with one another and the outside world?
FATHER JOE:
I guess it all depends upon how seriously Google cooperates with the Red Chinese government. While I am all for the censorship of pornography sites, the protection of children, and the prosecution of those who criminally exploit others; the Communists would use political and religious censorship to oppress their own people. Should Google cooperate in human oppression? What if the censorship software identifies dissidents who could suffer arrest or murder? People still disappear in China. Hackers might find their way around censorship software, but most poor Chinese Blog operators and general users only have elementary computer skills. The issue is bigger than Google. If the poor Chinese can get past the national portal to the Internet, they deserve protection within the international community. The Web can be a great tool for democracy; or we can ruin it like we did so much else of the media.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
The devil must really be laughing today. He delights in ignorance and sin. He assuredly has had a hand in the miscommunication of the Pope’s words on condom use. The Pope seemed pretty clear to me in his opposition. But Satan delights in dissent and the numbing of consciences. 
Traditional Catholics and Homeschooling parents are always lamenting the fact that they cannot find modest swimsuits for the young women in the family. Everything is designed these days to show ballooning cleavage and legs extended past the waistline, or so it seems. It is all a very scary business, especially if there are young men and teenage boys on the beaches too. Remember, the most dangerous thing for a teenage girl is a teenage boy! Many of us have not visited beaches in years so as to preserve the custody of the eyes. Well, if you are tired of parading your young daughters to the ravenous beach wolves, there is hope in sight. It comes from a highly unlikely place, the Muslims.
SPLASHGEAR MODEST SWIMWEAR has been designed with loose-fitting swim shirts (yes, even that pretty neck is covered!), swim pants (legs, what legs?) and hair covers (which she can use at Mass, too!). Why these girls look almost like boys they are covered so effectively. Fathers will no longer have to worry, indeed, they can get modest swim-gear for their wives too (they come even in jumbo sizes!).
The Church should start its own line, and we could sell to “good” Catholics and Muslims alike. But until then, the Muslims have online and mail-order catalogues! If our kids are afraid that others might make fun of them, we can start groups that will go to pools and beaches together. Catholic homeschoolers and Muslim girls can swim together and urge authorities to force those nasty boys to go somewhere else! With strength of numbers, our families and girls can admonish the other so-called Catholic females on the beach: “Have you no shame for exposing yourselves in underwear? Protestants, I mean Prostitutes wear more clothes than you! Why don’t you save money and just wear a couple pieces of cotton thread instead of that $500 string-bikini! Your butt is fat! My newborn baby sees you and all he wants to do is nurse!” You’ll have those immodest sirens running from the beaches in tears.
The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.
Blogger Priest 
