OctoberBaby

OctoberBaby

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Those Who Do Not Gather With Me, Scatter: What NewsWEAK got wrong in the gospel according to Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan proposes not just a separation of Church from State but of Christ from the Church. When liberals like himself are not professing that the laity should separate from the Bishops it's the Protestants who assume that the Bible can be separated from the Church or even that the faith can be practiced outside of the realm of religion. Yet here again the practicing homosexual Andrew Sullivan wants a decapitated Church, he would like the head of the Church separated from the Church the body of Christ, a.k.a "The Church" and is the second person since the Freedom From Religion organization posted a call for liberal Catholics to leave the Church. It should not seem odd that a practicing homosexual and an atheist organization are the ones trying to tear people away from their salvation.
New York Times, March 09,2012
 Fox News Shows NY Times Double Standard

Over and over someone like Andrew Sullivan or Thomas Jefferson believes that they have a superior theology to that of the Magisterium, or the teaching office of the Church. It is usually one person or a small circle of people but none as large as the Bishops and Cardinals, their consulted theologians and scholars who actually establish, through and with the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity who guides the Church and the deposit of faith granted by God. However, they never take this into consideration.

Thomas Jefferson's 'Bible'
Andrew Sullivan writes about his 'brand' of Christianity, he espouses Thomas Jefferson and  St. Francis of Assisi.  Most of what he said about St. Francis was valid and it is a credit to him to take such a great saint as an inspiration but like the PFARRERINITIATIVE, the rebelious priests in Austria that are demanding female ordination, they and he should imitate St. Francis's obiedience and humilty to the Holy Father and the Magisterium. Thomas Jefferson,on the other hand,  espoused a doctrine of separation of Church and State via a metaphorical 'invisible wall'. He cut out those passages and references spoken by Jesus which given his deist inclinations made no reference of the supernatural and focused entirely on what he considered a "... benevolent code of morals" . This would presume to leave out not only the miraculous healings but essentially the very declaration of Jesus to be the son of God and bring salvation to mankind in the form of eternal life. Thomas Jefferson's Jesus referred only to moral recriminations. Jefferson literally cut such passages from the book referring to the bulk of the bible according to Sullivan as a "dunghill" but the words of Jesus (exclusively on morals one supposes) as "diamonds". This is the man that the United States believes is so clever with his metaphorical wall of separation. In no other area of writing is this kind of hacking viewed as legitimate or ethical but here we have Jefferson splice away those parts of Christ's words he holds dear and leaving the rest in the waste basket. How does he know what words Christ spoke outside of the context of the Gospels brought to us all via Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Similarly Martin Luther during the sixteenth  century removed seven books from the Bible's old testament, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees, he was also going to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament but due to political peer pressure recanted. These are the type of people along with Andrew Sullivan that believe their theology is far superior on their own individual account than that of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. They do not add anything, unlike the Holy Church who actually decided in the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I & II (397 and 419) which books would literally consistitute the Bible or Holy Canon.  The denial of the truth is so great in these cases once one has of course read the Bible that one can only recall the words of Jesus, namely that Jefferson and Sullivan suffer from spiritual blindness. It is just one more of these strikingly obvious departure from standard accepted ethics which makes a spectacle out of the individual to the common observer. Again, in no literary circle is hacking a text for one's own purpose, literally taken prose out of context and chapters out of a book considered legitimate, nonetheless we have exactly that happening here and people still blissfully revere Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther without a dollop of conscientious incredulity. Although it is evident that neither Jefferson who claimed to be a 'real Christian' an obvious oxymoron and Luther were more a part of the world and could not see the Spirit of Truth. (John 14:17). It is equally clear that Sullivan is blind and it is equally sad that the print journalism trade has been so imperiled that this article was published by Newsweek and the New York Times daily news paper sells it's liberal slanted paper for $2.50 a piece, a day. If it had a decent circulation it wouldn't need to charge quite that much, not for something that isn't going to deliver an objective view of the world but merely to cater to what one as a liberal wants to read like political porn.

Andrew Sullivan has proven through his essays this one in particular, that homosexuality doesn't start with sexual preference for same sex, it ends with it. Pride, a clear subjective demand to not perceive the truth. It is no wonder that it wasn't enough for the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders but it's kissing cousin as well, narcissistic personality disorder. You see, it becomes evident that when one tries to remove a portion of reality from the whole that individual is suffering from a psychiatric break down. Often as Catholics we are asked to justify the faith according to the rationalist values of the world. That is because like Jefferson the entire super natural dimension of our religion is repudiated. It has been said that hell is a prison with to which those who reject God incarcerate themselves with the lock to the cell door being on their side of cell door, a form of barricade to keep God away. Observing these men it certainly seems to be the path that they are on. For instance,  at no time has Andrew Sullivan mentioned any biblical passages, not could he because almost anyone he could have sited would have contradicted his thesis. That he can have Christ without His bride the Church is a bit of the Protestant (and let's be clear, Protestant does mean people who protest...outside of the Church) attempt to have a bible without the Church and a faith without a religion, difficult feats to justify theologically.  The salvation of souls, the bride of Christ, the Church was after all the entire purpose of Christ suffering and crucifixion, the sacrifice of the lamb as a reparation for sin and as a means through the Holy Eucharist, the body of Christ, that when consumed remakes us in His divine nature and holy enough to share in His heavenly and eternal abode.

So what is it that Sullivan believes Christ mission was here on earth? Referring to Christ passion and crucifixion he writes,

" The Cross itself was not the point: nor was the intense physical suffering he endured. The point was how he conducted himself through it all-calm, loving, accepting and radically surrendering even the basic control of his own body and telling us that this was what it means to truly transcend our world and be with God."
That's right, what is after all important to ever narcissistic homosexual, comportment. How one behaves, how they carry themselves, their style is the very essence and value of all their existence.
No matte how heretical, deceptive and satanic you are, always carry yourself in style, style is everything.

 These passages from Christ, Andrew Sullivan's, self personified, which is characteristic of homosexuals, a difficulty with separation Like those he apparently choose to Ignore no different than his icon Thomas Jefferson.


 [30] He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." Matthew 12:30

"[16] You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. [17] These things I command you, that you love one another. [18] If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. [19] If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20] Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also." John 15:16


What we have in this, what should we call it, cover page opinion piece? What we have in Newsweek on magazine stands across the country is a sign of the times. We live in an era where print journalism is dying and it's thrashing about in a public pool, drowning directly underneath our nose. The magazine itself was, I am told, only a few pages thick, (I actually did not see on any stands in my local supermarket and no I didn't go looking for it as I haven't read Newsweek for years along with millions of others). Undoubtedly more than a few were surprised that such a previously acclaimed news magazine published an essay of such low merit at all, in fact 'Christianity In Crisis' wasn't even a news story. In the same way the Brooklyn Museum in October 1999 held the  "Sensation" exhibit in order to attract more people to the struggling museum out of financial necessity rather than good art. Newsweek may have published this essay for the same purpose to cause a sensation and attempt to maintain some relevance and increase profit. Yet, that is not to say that there isn't a genuine attempt to devalue religion and Catholicism in particular at the same time. Yet, it does seem that the liberal alliance in the news media has it's back against the wall itself when it comes to changing times and the rise of electronic media. We will see a lot less of them than they will of us. The devil prowls about to scatter the few he can because he knows his time is short.

Marshall McLuhan wrote in the Gutenberg Galaxy that the medium is the message and foreseen the global village where there would be more vision based communication and subsequent mass illiteracy and rampant anti-intellectualism. The village was filled with primitives. This is happening today before the eyes at those of us who are not spiritually blind thanks be to the Paraclete. Nonetheless, it is indeed a strange sight to see.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Atheist Want A Miracle; A World Without Cheap Labor

Atheist groups like those at the 'Reason Rally' have a tendency to condemn the Church on slavery, they claim that the Church or God endorse it. However, it is quite clear these groups attempt to exempt themselves from reality and history in an effort to denigrate the Church. It is equally clear that it is the Church that leads and keep people closer to reality than what we are currently finding in secular society. It is interesting to watch European and United States citizens (and as known slavery also occurred in African and other regions as well)absolutely remove themselves from any involvement in the slave trade of the past. Perhaps like the tomb builders said, "If they were there they would not have killed the prophets like their fathers."
They start from some place with an unidentified moral doctrine, perhaps one of these alternative universes that scientist Stephen Hawkins believes exists, and locate themselves absolutely outside of humanity, reality and history. These atheist are very good at analysis but not so good at putting the pieces together in the first place. It is like those of us who can take a radio apart but fail to put it back together again with all the pieces. When we come across those forgotten screws we say, 'well hell, what was that there for anyway, I can leave it out because it is not important.' When the truth is that we as humans really don't know how all these pieces fit together into the whole. What would they for instance have told the Roman emperors to use in place of slavery? The fact that there is no, and as these events are in the past for us here in the western world,  can not be an alternative to the reality of slavery, atheist attempt to cast the Church in this negative light condemning God or Christians for endorsing slavery. Yet a world that did not require cheap labor would indeed be a miracle in itself.
At the core of their reasoning is the idea that suffering in itself should not exist and should be stamped out wherever and whenever possible. This attitude undoubtedly contributes to their sense of entitlement and vanity as it did those in Sodom and Gomorrah where there was 'abundance of bread'. One shouldn't beat their children, there should be no war, no disease and no hungry children in the world. Man can make a utopia on earth without God. Whereas we as Catholics and Christians see suffering as having a redemptive quality. As Fyodor Dostoevsky stated, 'Suffering is the origin of consciousness.'. Yet, they for there own purposes don a 2012 secular world view and travel back in time with it across the globe in order to better prosecute the Catholic Church. In the same way that prosecutors in Philadelphia want to remove the statue of limitations on sexual crimes AS they are trying the priests and for the sole purpose of better prosecuting these priests in order to wedge a secular influence into the Church's autonomy.
This cry is very similar to the sex abuse allegations because slavery was not only widely accepted but a human social institution and it still is in many parts of the world. Today in America we import goods from laborers from the poorest parts of the world who stitch together expensive clothing for far less than any United States citizen could possibly live on. In effect they are considered slave wages. Then once they prosper and start to demand higher wages the mobile capital uproots and goes to a place where the labor is cheaper, crashing the emerging nation back down into poverty where they will once again learn to be more compliant and 'grateful'. Yet, unlike our atheist friend GordanHide, (first man on the board, an atheist)I accept my share of the guilt when I make my purchase of a new pair of sneakers or coat, I don't exonerate myself as pure and innocent in respect to the world I am living.
After hearing of the reports of the 'Reason Rally' where atheist behaved completely unreasonable spewing profanity for no reason at all. I mean, there wasn't some kind of counter force amongst them, I intend to pray for these atheist because they have demonstrated now and it is evident that as the future dawns they will be the ones who suffer most. I really think that Mr. Dawkins and his followers are suffering. I cannot understand atheist who are so rabidly oppossed to some entity they deny exists. Many of them have made their atheist promulgation their main occupation.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Oh SNAP! Your Director is a Fraud!


"David Clohessy claims that he doesn’t have to turn over most of the requested documents, or answer many of the questions. Why? Because SNAP is a rape crisis center, and therefore its confidentiality is protected under Missouri law. But when asked directly if SNAP is a rape crisis center, he said, “I don’t know.” He also admitted that he doesn’t know what constitutes a rape crisis center in Missouri.



Clohessy counsels alleged victims of abuse for a living, yet he admits to having no training whatsoever. He confessed that he does his unlicensed counseling in places like Starbucks; he also “consoles” his clients over the phone. Furthermore, there is not a single employed licensed counselor on SNAP’s staff. Moreover, he could not state a single instance where SNAP has paid for a licensed counselor to counsel a specific person."






David Clohessy works out of his home and use a P.O. Box to receive mail. Here's his deposition.

He himself claims to be a victim of clerical abuse which doesn't make him impartial.



These cases are simply a means by which the federal government can interfere and control the Catholic Church in America which is probably the only independant body large enough to recognize that the federal government is trying to destroy federalism and enslave citizens not only in this country but all over the world.



Many of these abuse stories are hackney because there is a lot of money involved. I have been Catholic all of my life and have never been sexually abused by a priest. Some of these people were fifteen or sixteen and I don't see how they were coerced into sexual acts, personally no priest could have made me take my pants down at that age. The claim that the Bishops can be held reliable for clerical abuse is one that question whether they should turn over their priest to the state for discipline or handle these things in house. I for one think they have every right to handle it in house. When the NAZIS came to power in Germany they ruled that the Church should turn over all the Jews they had contact with to the government, the Church did not comply with that mandate either. The Church has her enemies, KGB, Communist, NAZIS and now liberal Democrats, so she is susceptible to the vile acts of espionage, behaviour honest people can't imagine, that are practiced in these arenas as the Vatican itself is indeed a micro-state of her own. However, besides this, anyone who refuses to see the sexual gratification through children as something less than a culture is contributing to the cover up of basic human behavior that has taken place for milleniums.  If the Bishops are responsible for the pedophiles inside the Church who is responsible for the ones outside of the Church? The sexual abuse of minors is a cultural reality to which the consciousness of Man universally has to be raised out and above. The U.S.governments says they have laws, yes, they have laws, laws for abortion, contraceptive mandates, legalized pornography and gay marriage. To say something is legal or illegal in the United States really has no moral foundational underpinning at all anymore. Now the state wants to be the Church and dictate what it sees as reprehensible and what it does not. I don't know about anyone else but I would not feel my child was safe in a place where those behaviors listed above were considered normal, healthy and legal. Sexual abuse of children need to be put in the context of these other things the U.S. says is perfectly fine in order to make the determination of how earnest it claims to be when she states to hold child sexual abuse as the highest morally repugnant behavior known to man which subsequently requires a repeal of a statutes of limitations for the crime and crippling fines into the billions of dollars. How sincerely does the U.S. care about children when the most important  legislation passed for children in the last hundred years was the child labor laws in 1916?  'Gay marriage' for instance will allow a fifty year old man to marry a seventeen year old boy, sixteen with parental consent. Organizations like NAMBLA for instance always said that their argument wasn't sexual discrimination but age discrimination, they refer to it as 'ageism'. They feel they are being precluded from having sexual intercourse with boys because of unfair legislation, now with 'gay-marriages' they are that much closer to getting what they desire. We say that child sex abuse happened in the Church world wide rather than to admit that sexual abuse of children itself occurs world wide.  We like to think of the United States as fair and just but the Church has locations in many countries, many of which we as U.S. citizens don't perceive to be fair and just and many that don't perceive the U.S to be so either, many of us here at home are acquiring that same perception. We should never as U.S. citizens have the sense that the abrogation of civil liberties could 'never happen here', it can and it's being tested today in the Supreme Court.  The United States with this Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act is certainly testing the waters as to whether this is going to remain a free country or a totalitarian one.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The True History of the Church



There are many who would like to let you believe that Catholics themselves haven't been persecuted since the Roman Empire, here in this excellent movie starring Andy Garcia we are reminded how Catholicism was outlawed in Mexico during the twentith century.

Friday, March 2, 2012

A Man and his Bitch! The future of America.

At last many Catholics simply have to attest to their faith that indeed this world is in the hands of the devil. For example, when we are discussing the absurdity of 'gay-marriage' it is not merely a rational argument because in fact it is not a rational argument at all. Now that eight states in the United States has 'gay-marriages' legalized and most of Canada and Mexico, we can now turn our attention to what the devil will defile his servants with next, namely pedophilia and ... wait for it, zoophilia.

Brian Cutteridge
Brian Cutteridge in Vancover British Columbia, aka Canada was recently arrested for having sex with his dogs. This is a behavior which he feels is quite normal and believes that those who want to sleep with animals are being unduly oppressed by the neaderthals around him, have no doubt that he is not alone in this. Therefore, when Catholics compare 'gay-marriage' to a man marrying his dog, we no longer have to submit to the groans of the flabbergasted and those who claim it proposterous analogy. It is proven here to be in fact a reality.

Dr. Ted Kaczynski
Mr. Cutteridge espouses (no pun intended) some of the same reasoning that the homosexuals do in favor of 'gay-marriage' the idea that a man has a basic human right to have sex with his dogs. He even wrote a sort of treatsie or essay on the subject expounding why the United States government and Canada are wrong to make zoophilia or bestility illegal. Here it is actually really tricky ground now that same sex marriage is legal in eight states and President Obama refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. It is also worth noting the similarity between the conscious deliberation applied to such abohorent behavior which is very similar to pedophiles but even much more akin to the master mind killer in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22, 2011. He too wrote a manifesto of sorts which was completely coherent, here is Cuteridge's, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf . The Unabomber, Dr. Ted Kaczyniski, also had a manifesto, The Unabomber's Manifesto . Although beyond that the two really had nothing in common. The other man to have taken drastic and violent action was Anders Behring Brevick, and he too had a manifestio. 2083:A European Declaration of Independance.
Anders Behring Brevick

At first glance it may seem that Mr. Cutteridge is in a class by himself, as in fact to the best of our knowledge, he is not a murderer. However, it is the application of reason that is striking. All of these men are intelligent and even highly educated by the world's standards and yet they are all morally reprehensible. This goes to the heart of the notion that education, a secular education,  is alone all that is needed. Of course it seems that both Mr. Cutteridge and Mr. Brevick consider themselves Christians. This brings to mind the controversy over the presidents self-proclaimed adherence to the Christian faith.  Yet we see, their claims not withstanding, that these men are in no way practicing the faith and desperately, desperatly need to. Now each one one us here in the U.S. is being held captive by the false notions of emotional health maintained by the American Psychiatric Association(A.P.A) which removed homosexuality and narcissistic personality disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM). How can the state permit 'gay-marriages' or marriages period since it has no supernatural office. How can the state justify permitting 'gay-marriage' and not permit zoophilia, pedophilia and incest, not to mention polygomy? To say that in a democracy what's permitted and not permitted is nothing more than a consensus of culturally acceptable behaviours boarders on insane. Over time people can become accoustumed to almost anything. Certainly a culture without reason and God will devolve into self gratifiying accomodations. What's more Cutteridge is not entirely out of his mind. He has made it clear that the satisfaction which he recieves from having sex with his dogs is solely done for his pleasure and emotional satisfaction, he is not trying to satisfy his 'girls'.

"Justice and the Right to Due Process
1 The practice of zoophilia , or sexual interaction between humans and animals for the physical and emotional gratification of the human involved, has been a part of the human relationship with animals for as long as humans have been kept animals domestically."
That is a direct relationship between the abuse of the dog and the abuse committed against a man in a gay relationship who is sodomized. The sodomized man is an object of abuse, not a loved person. One of the hardest thing for abused people to learn is the difference between love and abuse.  However, from a Christian point of view these men are every bit the victim as the people they've hurt and killed, including Mr. Cutteridge who hurts himself and society, because they certianily seem to have been lead away by Satan.