OctoberBaby

OctoberBaby

Friday, July 23, 2010

Are Sexual Mores Based On Love and Truth or Currently Acceptable Trends?

Citing Anthony Stephen-Arroyo column in the Washington Post "On Faith" July 22 article where Dr. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League makes the claim upon all the evidence of the Church sex scandal that the main violators were not merely pedophiles but homosexuals and that homosexuality is the real culprit I have to say to some degree that I agree with him. It seems to me that while homosexuality gets a pass because it is between two consenting adults, pedophilia is a crime because the child is below the age of consent. Yet the question remains whether sexual deviance of any sort can be either eschewed legally or supported. The reality of the matter is that sexuality is a matter of psychological conditioning, people have certain appetites to express positions and traits that they hold within themselves. The pedophile is looking to have complete control and dominance he is as interested in abusing his victims as any torturer. The homosexual is also interested in abusing the person that he is having sex with, that is the trait that ought to be recognized with the homosexual as well. Where there is pride there is bound to be this desire to express triumphalism and superiority beyond the acceptable limit that a person ought to be treated, ultimately it is an absence of love that is the prevailing trait.

Some would say that the crime is the Bishops looking the other way when it came to sexual abuse of minors and that is highly possible. I would offer that none of us would be looking at this issue either if it wasn't for the money that could be dole out to victims, up to one billion dollars now. If the Church was poor and bankrupt, if there was no way for money to be had, a lawyer would not even be hired.

"Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer with the firm that represents nearly half of the alleged victims, said the $85 million offer was accepted after considering the archdiocese's financial condition and the additional stress a trial would put on victims." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96801,00.html


Sexuality has variant moral latitudes amongst us as human beings. Here in the United States and Europe homosexuality is no longer considered a psychiatric or moral problem when in fact it is seen to be so by the Church. In South Africa for instance they have some of the highest rates of child rape in the world (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1680715,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world). "Many children are brutalized so often that they are desensitized to the abuse being a crime."

Variances on sexual predispositions lead to a variety of moral perceptions regarding sexual behavior and even then what the individual holds is often different than what the state espouses. For instance in India and places like South Africa many men claim to believe that having sex with a minor will cure them of AIDS. The moral implication of this of course being two fold one is that sex with a minor is legitimate given any condition and two ridding oneself of AIDs at the expense of another contracting it is also valid. While in places like Uganda homosexuality is still illegal. In the United States and Europe there used to be sodomy laws on the books as well as laws preventing the manufacturing and dissemination of pornography. Today gay marriage is perceived by some as a civil right and pornography is a billion dollar a year industry.

The payouts from the Church may not be directly related to the crimes, there are undoubtedly those not telling the truth to get to the money that is available as was the case in the 9/11 tragedy, hurricane Katrina disaster and the Toyota recall of 2010. According to the John Jay Report, the responses of the dioceses and religious communities at the time of the allegations were as follows.

As for other crimes, John J. Geoghan who was the defrocked priest at the center of the Boston Archdiocese Church Sex Scandal in the 1990's was killed in prison by Joseph Druce. He was accused of allegedly abusing 130 children. Although he was in protective custody he was strangled and stomped to death, yet the State was not held liable for this. In fact most probably thought he deserved his fate when in fact he had beaten two charges because the statue of limitations had run out and one case was dropped by the plaintiff. The case that he was in jail for was being appealed.

In the end when we live in a world with such outstanding ambiguity when it comes to sexual mores as we do today, it seems strange to a limited degree that pedophilia would be treated excessively different or that we really have the right to "screen out" the less popular sexual activities on a moral basis, presumably because they are not as popular as say homosexuality or seen as indefensible.

NAMBLA(North American Man Boy Love Association) was a member of the International Gay and Lesbian Alliance in 1993 (along with MARTIJN and Project Truth) until forced out by a bill from Senator Jesse Helms which would withhold $119 million dollars in U.N. contributions until President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The International Gay and Lesbian Association received U.N. consultative status in 1994. While Gary King of the Human Rights Organization claimed that NAMBLA was not a gay organization and had nothing to do with the homosexual community. NAMBLA responded by saying "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#The_International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association_controversy




Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'? - U.S. - Catholic Online

Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'? - U.s. - Catholic Online

“Every religious idea, every idea of God-even flirting with the idea of God—is unutterable vileness of the most dangerous kind, contagion of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence, and physical contagion are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God.” Lenin wrote these words and was convinced by them. As Lutheran Pastor Richard Wurmbrand stated in his 1967 book Tortured for Christ, “The highest goal of man is to become Christ-like. To prevent this is the main aim of Communists. They are primarily anti-religious. they believe that after death man becomes salt and minerals, nothing else. They desire the whole life to be lived on the level of matter.”

We have come to the conclusion in the West that the Cold War is over because of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the economic demise of the Soviet Union and because British Prime Minister at the time Margret Thatcher claimed it had ended. Certainly, communism failed as the one thing it was touted to be, an economic system. However, as a value system it persists. The atheist today lament the Inquisition a tribunal process that last over 700 years between 12th century and the 19th century. They also bring up the Crusades although America and much of the West is fighting Muslims at this time and the Muslims much like the Communist find that those with other religion (Communist would prefer nothing but communism) are incompatible with their ‘system’. Even recently, Soviet spies have been exposed although they were under surveillance for years.

Today, there are traits and tendencies in the world which do not openly declare themselves to be members of Communism but they are a social concupiscence, a unity between homosexuals, atheists and pro-choice parties that share these views very much like that of the communists. People that certainly seem to work in concert in a way that the average Catholic has not. Many Catholics do not even keep a internet network by which they can stay in contact with one another in their local parish. It is also worth mentioning the constant presure of the Muslims. Certainly, one of the main ideas that need to be given voice is that Catholicism as a religion has a cosmogony and theology. We think that indeed there is evil in the world and that that evil is orchestrated by a fallen angel, a spiritual power named Satan. How other explain it is not clear, how they explain evil.

In the Church sex scandal there has been an overshot of pedophilia itself to set scorn upon the Catholic Bishops. This actions are said to be crime, crime against the State. Ironically, the State is now like blasphemy charges in Islam which gets stained and offended and requires recompense. There are “hate crimes”, “war crimes” and the very concept of discrimination is considered a “crime”. Today, almost anyone can fall under the jurisdiction of the United States court system. The Church and the Vatican is called into these court systems whereas the Bishops are “employees” of the Vatican and the Pope, as if they work for the salary or pay. It is a speculation that all financial transactions can be formulated in terms of an employer/employee relation. Not to mention the idea that money can be used to justify bringing people to everlasting life in a place where money is worthless. To say that the Bishops are “employees” who work for money is to say that they are idolatrous like anyone who works strictly for money and are not merely given access to a line of financial support which everyone in society needs in order to live respectfully and independently. Although I may receive $1000.00 a week from my parents it does not imply that I am their employee. The States unwillingness to see relationships as independantly  as they are from that of the business model is a capitalist socialist interpretation which is much more a collaboration of political communism with economic capitalism, what I would call, the corporate capitalist canopy. Where all of the “little people” live in the roots and shadows of those multi-millionaires living on subsidiaries and stipends as if all were illegal immigrants, all working but invisibly with limited legal rights.

It certainly appears that in this “New World Order” there is no place for the Church which is much the way that the Communist perceived things. Therefore it seems that in fact that Communism and Capitalism have worked out their differences which was not all that much since the Capitalist were materialist who simply wanted the comfort of money and Communist were materialist who believed that all was mere matter as well but sought a fair distribution amongst the masses and had the State as the central planner. Islam on the other hand wanted Allah to be the center of this world but as we see in Dubai and Saudi Arabia the “Holy Land” of all Muslims no problem with the wealth of Capitalist and the central planning of the Communist. Only the Catholic Church the body of Christ interrupts all these plans because it says that the world is evil and that this current life must be sacrificed for the life to come.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Ross Douthat:With Catholics Like These, Who Needs Democrats or Harvard Grads

200px-RossDouthat Ross Douthat does not merely claim to be a Catholic, he is also a Harvard graduate. Clearly, you can see what problems we face.  Yet, all our reason is supposed to be stymied because they tout the name Catholic or Harvard graduate.
Who needs an educational facility, that is one of the most expensive in the country but is for all intentions little more than an anti-American intellectual terrorist training camp inside the U.S.?  How can we accept Commanders and Chiefs from an institution that would prohibit the American military itself from recruiting on it's ground all the while Americans are putting their lives on the line to defend their presumptuous Ivy league lifestyle? How can we permit a Supreme Court Justice to sit on the bench from this very same school, who will insist that "Don't ask Don't tell" policy crafted under an administration that she herself served directly under as Solicitor General was "a moral injustice of the first order"?  How did homosexuality become the litmus test for morality? An institution that produces President Barrack Hussein Obama who believes that the Biblical admonishments against homosexuality are little more than "obscure references". Since when is St. Paul, author of almost one third of the new testament and Romans chapter 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 obscure? How can a Harvard trained attorney find a book obscure which literally numbered each and every sentence?  Did Barrack Hussein Obama draw these conclusions from America's "moral imagination?"  Is this what Harvard's twisted pseudo intellectualism amounts to, one thing in name and another in practice? Did I mention that Harvard educated Ross Douthat considers himself Catholic?
All the while we proclaim two plus two must equal five for the sake of equality or because their handlers in the Kremlin or Osama Bin Laden said that is their mission. All to often recently we discover that we live amongst spies and terrorist. We greet each other in the morning then set about our variant jobs in the day, one to be a nurse, another to be a lawyer and yet another to plant a bomb in middle of Times Square. Then we break for lunch at the local McDonald's. Of course the report from the neighbors is what a good and regular joe the local terrorist was,  the plotter and the terrorist. If Ross Douthat is a Catholic, how can you possibly blame the Catholics for anything? Ross Douthat, Elena Kagan and Barrack Hussein Obama, this is what Harvard is turning out, anti-Americans? Then we will ask, "Where did it all go wrong?".

Ross Douthat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friday, July 2, 2010

New York Times Modernist Homosexual Mentality Unsafe For America

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=773
Gaberial Schonfeld spoke in May about his new book Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law. He explains how on several occasions the New York Times as well as other media sources have worked with National Security Employees or "leakers" which produced great losses for American security and defense.

Here, I refer to it as a homosexual mind set because of the famous ranting of openly gay congressman Barney Frank who went on a Kruschev like tantrum begging what he thought to be an unanswerable if not rhetorical question of how homosexual marriage could possibly effect the lives of their heterosexual neighbors. When in fact, any person in their sound mind, the subconscious mind, could tell you that trends and common acceptance of customs are perpetuated by the masses for the greater good of social cohesion and the avoidance of ostracism. The irony of course being the homosexual's exploitation of this interdependency amongst people in which they demand to be recognized as equal and accepted in community but foresake and hold has a trivial issue the long standing adherence to natural law the people they want to live openly amongst cherish. Further they claim that their lives lived outside of the closet, no differently than it was lived inside of the closet will have no effect on America's standards of social and moral behavior. The shadows and the phantasies of the dark and cramped closet are now to be performed without moral inhibition in the conscious light of day. When in fact the only thing normal about homosexual behaviour is their demonstrative psychosis which blinds them from comprehending how the human behavior of one influences the human behavior of others and yet every rule of social acceptance is predicated on this phenomenon.

More specifically, the recorded seminar above has an introduction from General Haydon, former CIA director. He expresses what he rightly percieves as the communal responsibility of journalist and how their actions can jeopardize national security in contrast to their self declared role of protecting Americans from a government run amok. There is this ever present balance between an informed public and national security which publications like the New York Times ignore.

The traditional role of the press as the fourth estates comes into question as many roles have changed in this era of globalization. Much in the same way the fulcrum of pressure that ordinarily kept people out of bankruptcy has diminished to the point where bankruptcy is now nothing more than a financial strategy most everyone is willing to employ. Today the question arises as to whether the press is really a counter balance to the three branches of government as it has consistently argued in decades past has been the preeminent legitimization for not disclosing their confidential sources or are they merely an agency complict in a crime which may have national security repercusions far into the future they could never have foreseen.

Leaks when carried out by government intelligence officials are crimes. Are the news professionals reporting the story they received from them complicit in this crime?

In the Catholic Church Sex Scandal of 2010, the New York Times let loose a barrage of defamatory articles with legal cases mostly supplied by Jeff Anderson the prosecuting attorney against the Church. What then was the justification for essentially leasing their circulation to an attorney who was currently prosecuting the case? The Church is not government so it could not be said to be performing this very biased attacks for the sake of National Security. Nor can the Church be said to be directly involved with the New York Times in any way. However, it still lent out it's circulation to an attorney who was literally in the middle of his prosecution. Why, and what should the Federal Government or the State government fear (as they attempted to defaming the current New York State Governor) from the New York Times selling out its circulation? The answer is simple, what propagandist would not like to have access to the The New York Times readership? Well certainly a tremendous amount of unflattering things can be said against several agencies that serve Americas' interests. The C.I.A. ,N.S.A, the United States Military any one of which could have it's past files and action regurgitated upon an unsuspecting public blasting controversial and shrouded activities throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies. Had these agencies existed as long as the Church it is quite possible that they would go back hundreds and even thousands of years of independently concluded "wrong doings". Looking at events in the past through the prism of today's secular democracy which currently perceives two men marrying as a civil right. It becomes clear that what was initially perceived as an unbiased public service to keep the public in formed for the sake of democracy can alternately be refitted to be used on the offensive. The shield of confidentiality protecting their source which they so zealously preserve for themselves applies in the Church Sex Scandal only so far as their publishing credibility is concerned yet unless the source is disclosed, it can verily be anyone with an interest in destablizing Church or the United States for that matter, including Al Qaeda.

Mr. Schoenfeld argues that the state has a right to keep some of it's secrets secret in the interest of national security to which no one would argue, however he goes one step further and question what civic responsibility the press have even if they come across issues of national security. Returning to Congressman Franks temper tantrum for a moment, what social responsibility do Americans owe one another? The Empire State Building refused to honor the Mother Teresa in lights this year but if the Empire State Building would to be hit with a plane similar to the Twin Towers, would Catholics in the vicinity be justified in not helping the victims? Are we one nation under God during war and sudden tragedy but independent of one another during all other times? Is it not the essence of psychological maturity when one commits to sharing in the social enviornment of another even if he or she does not particularly enjoy it but instead recognizes an inteterdendent solidarity amongst all when the waif of cigerette smoke and the sound of music cannot be avioded but also need not be xenophobically disdained? Certainly were a bomb to explode in the middle of a crowded Manhattan street it's only criteria for whom it will effect would be it's blast radius. With in the radius of this bomb it would not matter who was Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or atheist.

At the same time does not the Church and the State have the right to reserve judgement on how they respond to incidents within their respective domains as a legitimate internal decision making process? Similarly, the editorial decision of the Times are exclusively reserved by them they Times does not solicit the opinion of any other body as to what it should print. This is also an internal decision making process which they themselves treat as private if not secret.
Yet the Vatican and the United States are neither private or necessarily act in secret, they are soverign, neither are a private 'buisness' to wit liabilities can be claimed as if each and every incident which occurs right outside their doors can be litigated as a simple slip and fall case.
Major Nisan Hidal, the tradey of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans or even the British Petrolem oil spill can be readily construed as federal government lapses but then so can the Vietnamn War and all other actions the Executive and legislative branch involves itself. Do we hold the state responsible for the actions of it's adversaries as well, for all the cases of slip and fall which are deliberate frauds?

Now the Catholic Church faces a Supreme Court trial. Yet it faces the trial under the provincial laws of Oregon. In Oregon, the Bishops are seen as "employees' of the The Holy See and the priest are seen as "employees" of the Bishops. This false nomenclature or mercantile transposition of a mercantile relatedness does not suite the relationship of the Church as much as it does a shopping mall. Certainly, there has to be some consideration for States, Multi-nationals and the Church, which in part may explain why international bodies like the U.N. are in New York and not Oregon. One wonders were the president of Iran to visit an embassy in Oregon (or for whatever reason he might be there) would they arrest him under similar statutes?

This questionable judgement when it comes to more complex organisations like the Church brings into question whether a change of venue is warranted, since it seems that only under Oregon State can the Bishops be viewed in this light. Are congressmen employees of the State, to the point where they merely carry out the wishes of the state for pay? Are Colonels employees of the military, does their paycheck reflect a reasonable compensation for what they do? Perhaps in fact this is the mentality that has swept America which is why Major Nisan Hidal was allowed to be promoted with out any qualms that an actively faithful Muslim man was working so closely with American troops set to depart to Afghanistan and effectively neutralize as many of his fellow Muslims as they saw fit. This again is Barney Franks homosexual mind set where by one fails to intuit how ones actions effects an other's. The homosexual mind set, or 'gay', actively excludes the intuitive reality or perhaps what was formerly known in the ancient world as 'ether' or perhaps 'love'. It attempts in its psychologically deranged defensive posture to ignore emotions, what one feels, and the entire gamut of subconscious reality which can be better learned in a heterosexual relationship. The immediately apprehend truths that do not need to be extrapolated into conscious debate which few have words to express because here to fore they were taken as intuitive, axiomatic and self evident truths. Only men and women can marry, the Church is not a mercantile business and one can not transpose that relationship upon them any more than they can upon the lawyer/client relationship, the doctor/patient relationship or the penitent/confessor relationship. While these fiduciary relationships imply money as the paramount interest they more accurately reflect the true application of human rights, the right to private council. Yet we have seen the United States succumb to the 'business of America is business" model applied to all walks of life. Hospitals were run as if they were factories by HMO's(Health Medical Organizations), war in Iraq was surmised to be identical to the liberation of France in 1945, entire baseball teams were classified as a "product' on the field all in the inescapable reality of having only economic primacy and subsequently the mercantile paradigm as the sole reason for being which could be applied. Even beef and poultry farms were operated at un Godly rates of reproduction, life and slaughter, with slaughter houses killing up to 5000 cattle a day, injecting them with Bovine Growth Hormones to keep their meat as lean as chicken. Only to be slowed down by Mad Cow disease because they were feed dead cats and dogs presumably as a means to cut the cost of feeding them. This lead to a suspension of importation of American Beef by the Japanese.

The homosexual mindset as proved out by the New York Times, the Associated Press and Reuters, not to mention Time magazine. Harbors the notion that one can print things irresponsibly, they treat great epochs of European history as mere foot notes, the Crusades, the Inquisition and simply hope that what most have associated with the reality about these events, no matter how vague, will suffice to garner the animosity of the reader against the Church much in the way a screen writer attempts to influence the emotions of the movie watcher, with little regard to historical accuracy.

What the Church needs now is a metaphysical change of venue. Currently Oregon has dictated how it will perceive the Church and it has chosen to perceive the Church as a "private" entity like a bank, filled with employees who answer to the Pope and the Holy See as a corporate headquarters. The irony is not lost at all in fact that for decades the United States has abide by a policy of 'separation of Church and State'. This speaks exclusively to the Catholic Church and not nearly or at all to Protestantism, which does not have a universal Church, or one body, the organization of which RICO statues have been seen appropriate to apply in the Church scandal, for if there is only one body and one head, certainly it can be held accountable for the actions of all it's participants. Rather, only the clergy or "employees" are to be held responsible and not the parishioners. This then brings into question why would any mercantile organizations be barred from the worlds largest capitalist country? Who then is the Church in this separation and why are they separated? Has the separation of Church and State just dissolved?

Certainly an organized body, a person, has the right to present itself in court under the guise of their own self perceived identity. No one has to go into a trial under the characterization of the plantiff. Where that not true, how would a fair trial be possible? African-Americans in 1935 Alabama would thus be characterized as unintelligent, shiftless "internal problems" whenever they went to court from the very beginning and that has historically been the case. Even to the point where animals were allowed to testify against them, a horse would be summoned to stomp it's hooves twice for "yes" and once for "no". The trial would commence with the defendant attempting first to plead his way out of the psychotic perceptions of the plaintiff. This has dangerous implications in this era of terrorism and terror trials.

In the end one might suspect that we are witnessing a new dark ages in the United States and Western civilization where people are content to lie or perceive others as they see fit rather than to adhere to logic and reason. What are human rights, are they rights a man has under God, or are they rights men bestow bilaterally amongst themselves? Then again, what are human wrongs and when can you deduce that the moral fiber of a country has been removed. Is it not when natural law is devalued? Is it not when reason and logic are replaced with ambition and political motives? Is it not when truth is barred from legal proceeding and medical diagnosis. In the famous words of Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?". Will America succumb to a dark age of lies in order to shape it self into prefabricated state drawn from the delusional fantasies of it's own moral imagination, or will we respect the truth of God and admit that man is bereft without Him? Much of the truth can be known but comprehensive understanding through the eyes of mature men who can hold the threads of liberty, justice and truth in hands of sincere humanitarianism, abide by natural law and reason with the logos of divine love.