Thursday, July 28, 2011

Celebacy In The (Priest)Hood

In retrospect I think that the Church has handled the 'sex abuse crisis' very well. Pedophilia is a cultural and behavioral sexual reality which would be amongst human society with or without the Church. It is appalling and disgraceful the way people absolve themselves from the responsibility of contending with prepubescent sexual desires of their own families but wish by the same token to pile up this opprobrium upon the Church. The Church alone treated pedophilia as a psychiatric problem the same as homosexuality, affective disorders and eating disorders because in fact like those other disorders prison sentences will do nothing to change them.  Yet the vanity of man is that he doesn't have these disorders and the less the modern state admits to these disorders the healthier it can claim to be. Look at Emmerich Weissenberger hanging outside St. Stephen's Cathedral, is he well? Isn't it convenient to claim him as so. Further, take places for instances where same sex marriage is permitted,  they are actually one step closer to the  legalization of pedophilia. The same case that they sued and harangued the Church over for more than two and one half billion dollars.  In N.Y. (U.S.A)for example,  a fifty year old man can now marry a seventeen year old boy, sixteen with parental consent, given ten years the age of marital consent will be reduced to fourteen and one half. These sexual predilections we are suppose to believe exist in the Catholic parishes of Germany but not in Germany itself, they exist in the Catholic seminaries of Ireland but not amongst the Irish people themselves. The Church maintains a collegial atmosphere much like a university or the military. Their is a hierarchy but not one based on sexual obligations. It doesn't have a sexual culture any more than it has a culinary culture. By the time one attends university they are expected to handle their drink if they are going to drink at all, deal with their sexual desires and inclinations and know how to feed themselves. A student can rely on his instructors for lessons in history, not on what he should do with that drunken naked girl (or boy)in his dorm room, or how to prepare spaghetti and meatballs for dinner because he's hungry.
Those are things taught at home and learned in one's hometown. It is these behaviors that priest bring with them from home and some of them are not so hygienic. Priest are not flown out from the Vatican in a pod and hatched in the parish, they are drawn from the surrounding communities. If people are not practicing pedophilia at home they won't be practicing them in a Catholic seminary. Summarily then, celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia, it is not that a priest, or for that matter any man is so bound up with sexual tension that he has sex with a the next available sphincter muscles he can grab hold of, that makes no sense. A man who is sexually tense and left alone in the woods will not automatically start having sex with rabbits. No, a man who is not a pedophile is not going to start behaving as one because he has not slept with a woman. The ordination of women is wrong because the priesthood is formed in the iconography of Jesus who was a man. At this very time we are failing to accept the physical and the transcendent meta-physical reality that we are as God created us, physically. Today a sex change is since applicable at any time. Akin to breast implants or 'tummy tucks'. Where is the operation that will make a weakling an international famous football player? Does that operation exist? We have come to believe that sex is nothing more than a cosmetic adaptation which we can change. It is not. Men and women are fundamentally and specifically have chromosomal differences. We must first accept who we are as physical creatures. No, not everyone is physically qualified to play on a professional sports team, and no, woman are not men and thus cannot be priest. (Many of these same women refuse even so to be nuns,why? Is that not pride?) Albeit, maybe the Church should not take too many young boys into the seminary at a young age but how is this any different than boarding schools? While with the 'gays' we claim their behaviour to be beautiful and wonderful, when those taste stray under the age of puberty we say it is a crime but the pedophiles themselves claim that it is discrimination on the basis of age, just ask them, they have a website, NAMBLA.ORG., what next? When does man start to carry his cross like Jesus and admit that the sins which he commits are his alone? We have these people who even want to refer to God as 'she', so the prayer taught by our Lord is entirely dismissed by them. No, all of these people are anti-Christ. We know already what to expect from the Germans, German neo-paganism.

It is also interesting to note how many people like the homosexuals feel that they are 'evolved' and advanced and yet also shun the idea of celibacy. When in fact celibacy is thought to be the more advanced state of human beings. Since these type of people endorse something that they consider to be 'spiritual' at times but then do not elaborate any further on the subject there is only wonder as to why at a time when there are pervasive sexually transmitted diseases celibacy is shunned.
Celibacy is not just something for priest but many of us as Catholics and non-Catholics should also consider it's application in our lives. Instead of celibacy laws are passed to permit abortion and we are told that there is a Malthusian population problem where according to population projection there wont be enough food for everyone therefore contraception is highly valuable and respectable. Clearly astonishing are those claiming the celibacy is the cause of pedophilia and should be done away with in lieu of marital sex. Even though you've had pedophilia during pagan Rome where orgies were part of the norm, meaning there was no sexual deprivation at all. The psychiatric prescription adapted in the thirties and forties with 'scientist' like Freud was the idea that it was the inhibitors themselves that should be done away with and in part this mode of problem solving evolved with the notion that the goal to health was total personal satisfaction. One should solve for comfort, their own personal comfort rather than see themselves as part of a larger whole, a larger society and restrain or sublimate particular impulses in order to serve the greater community.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Subtraction through Addition:'Gay-Marriage" in the Age of A.I.D.S

The decision by the New York State Senate has been the death kneel to not only the State of New York but to the country at large because it reveals the depth of concern that exist amongst the wealthiest people in this state and probably throughout the country. The new 'law' reflects the monetary idolatry and the absolute dedication to friends and family members that trumps any fidelity to God and doing the right thing.

The notion that the wealthy can purchase the state's honor to suit their gay son's and girlfriend's gay brother's has been taken as a sign that indeed the majority of people at the top are no good. That the unbridled lust for pleasing one another has taken preeminent place in the lives of the rich and influential. 

What also cannot be debated is the reality that we have no free press in this State and if not here, then where? Mike Lupica of the Daily News lambasted Archbishop Timothy Dolan and former N.Y. Giant David Tyree for their position on 'gay-marriage'. These are two men that have nothing in common except their Christian faith, their opposition to 'gay-marriage' and happen to be two very accomplished men in their respective fields. One is Irish, the other African-American, one is Catholic the other Protestant, one is a priest and the other a professional athlete and both have served this city faithfully bringing nothing but gain and victory to the city of New York. Yet, both were insulted as stupid for not being born in New York City, both were considered hateful back watered bigots because they professed their belief that marriage is as God assigned it between one man and one woman. Mike Lupica though sided not with God and the Archbishop and the Super Bowl hero but with his gay neighbor whom he claims have been in a monogamous relationship with another man for thirteen years and this man was worth throwing all three, God and the two faithful men following Christ under the bus.

There is with Mike Lupica and other people like him the persistent lie unworthy to even be called self-delusion, that gay men in sexually monogamous relationships, as if that can be honestly ascertained even amongst married men, is decent for some reason. That if gay's get married they will be as 'decent' and reputable as a true married couple in a Catholic sacramental marriage. There is the pollution of lies that 'gay-marriage' has something to do with civil rights, equality or for that matter homosexuals. Gay marriage has nothing to do with gays any more than prohibition had to do with alcoholics or slavery had to do with the Civil War as a moral issue. 'Gay-marriage' has to do with the dissolution of marriage in America. In order to accomplish these things the secondary groups are always called to arms like the poor proletariats, marshalled against the royals in communist revolutions. First it is the African-Americans, then the woman and now the gays. To which although civil rights was a justifiable crusade for the African-Americans and emancipation from slavery, the rich made sure they got their hands in the till with one of their greatest manipulations, the recognition of their corporations as a 'person', a right that not even human beings have yet to aquire in the United States. Of course this was  all accomplished on the back of the fourteenth ammendment written to give African-Americans legal protections. The same equal protection clause is used today by the gays surmounted by the lie that they constitute a 'people' and is promulgated throughout the fifty states and the world. As for all the woman who were running to be in the corporate work place more people are aware of Kim Kardashian than Meg Whitman or even Ellen Kullmen of Dupont or Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo.  With legalized pornography it can be assumed that the new generation of young women will probably get into politics the same way ex-porn star Ginger Lee did by getting perverse 'tweets' from a lying Congressman.  I had better write and publish this quick because soon as in Canada it will be considered 'hate speech' yet the vile things that people like Mike Lupica and other opinoinist have made agaisnt the Catholic Church and Christian who value a decent country will not.

It is interesting and sad to note that 'gay-marriage' has been championed by two unmarried men in New York State, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo. Both of these men are divorcees who probably couldn't care less what happens to the state of New York in regards to the sanctity of marriage since theirs ended in failure. Neither of these men have attempted to remarry again and so the implications that they have anything to add to the conversation on marriage was a moot point from the beginning.

Most of the men involved in this were in compromising relationships with women. Both Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo merely have girlfriends, not wives and in the Governor's case he beds with a woman, Sandra Lee whose brother is openly gay. Democratic assemblyman Carl Kruger who voted for the bill this time around lives with a woman Dorthy Turano, who has a gay nephew. Men like this got pestered and petitioned from their pillows to pavement and simply could not stand up to the people in their lives, no matter how illegitimate, in order to do the right thing for the state of New York. Many people would like to congratulate Governor Cuomo on his leadership getting this bill passed but leading drunkards to the bar for happy hour isn't leadership, leading drunkards away from the bar during happy hour is leadership. That is what Christ has done for so many people in their lives till this day.

Senator's Addabbo and Alesi were something like the absentee dad that is present in the home. Leaving others to dictate their positions. Senator Grisanti was simply a traitor to the people who actually elected him into office. Roy McDonald and Steve Saland seemed to be men who acted out of no real convictions on the issue. It brings to mind the quality of weakness necessary to be a politician which we saw in Congressman Anthony Wiener and the South Carolina governor Mark Sanford who left his wife and his job as governor to have an adulterous affair with another woman in Argentina, was it Eva Perone? No, the lady in question was merely Argentinian journalist Maria BelĂ©n Chapur.  Had this sitting governor been abducted by terrorist would the United States have sent special forces in order to retrieve him, I hope not. We saw it in Congresswoman Gifford, God bless her speedy recovery but she demonstrated what I can only describe as an immature notion that one can simply stand on a street corner and preach politics without a security detail.  As a Congresswoman, she was making decisions for this country regarding national defense and yet she proved conspicuously nonchalant when it came to her own.

As for me, my position against homosexuals hasn't changed but if it were at all possible has hardened against them and those people to who 'don't have a problem with those people'. The psychiatric mess that they are more than willing to have children grow up in, the animosity that these people both homosexuals and their supporters have casted against God with this vote not to mention the campaign of lies and the collusion of media forces including, The New York Times, The Daily News, NBC,  and many others (with the notable exception of 1010 WINS which is still the best news source in New York to which I give a hearty applause for not only unbiased journalism but also for their willingness to air religious centered advertisement calling men back to prayer) is indicative that the parable of the tenants is alive and true for us Catholics now as when Jesus first mentioned it two thousand years ago. This vote was a statement that the truth can be ignored and the country will follow any course dictated to it by the rich. It was a vote that said that men would rather solve for comfort rather than be alienated from their girl friends and do what is right. It was a pusillanimous decree that the men in New York love money and luxury rather than the one true God. It was a vote that had to take place if only to identify the idolaters and the faithless.

Overall I have to admit that I do not live in a free country. There is no such thing as freedom of the press when someone owns the newspaper. That indeed 'the rich are different..." they are evil and despise God. Their role in these anti-religious campaigns also include their war on Islam over seas. To which I cannot imagine how the troops will take it when they return from Afghanistan and find that what they have been fighting for has been to live in total debauchery and dishonor. I have never been embarrassed to live in New York until that vote. New York State and NYC is in a state of irredeemable disgrace. May God have mercy on our souls.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Why 'gay-marriage' is wrong

Gays are not maritable. It will not make a difference if they get a legal certificate that says that they are.  It is based on the fact that two gays getting together is a defacto demurrage, i.e. people staying in an infantile psychological  state, demurring the ascent to marry. Homosexuality is a choice, it is a willingness to do without God, it is a willingness to avoid psychological maturation and a denial of objective reality. Homosexuality does serve as a social impediment, it prevents the individual from entering into the marital state, the state which is safest for the community at large in regards to S.T.D's and most conducive and supportive for child bearing and rearing. Marriage itself is a social institution not a private relationship between two people. It is effectively an office held by two people of the appropriate age in the recognized legal structure of a marriage, a legality that in a Catholic marriage is first and foremost recognized by the God and the Church and then ratified by the State. As an office it is not occupied by the two person in question for the exclusive benefit of the two person's in question. It serves to ally and strengthen two families and creates a third through procreation by which a medium is created in which an indisputable birth right is established which cannot be revoked or denied in any manner as a biological family member. The children in question have aunts, uncles and cousins on either side which strengthen and unify the family in total. 

Now, as to the question posed, how does gay marriage effect it's detractors or even it's heterosexual supporters? This comes across as a very strange question as it pertains to law in a representative democracy. A government of the people, for the people by the people, A government that prosecutes people as one unified state implying the people of that state agree that an individual has transgressed their laws and hence their values and societal obligations. It seems strange how in a city like New York where it is determined that smokers undermine the health of non-smokers and this is the grounds by which it is currently illegal to smoke a cigarette in a public park that the question of how an aberrant inclusion to the social structure such as the redefinition of marriage effects heterosexuals. Perhaps it is because the social, the abstract and the metaphysical not to mention the super natural have all been dismissed in lieu of the material. Yet we recognize the realist notion of a 'state' as one body, we recognize the realist notion of a corporation as one 'body'. Yet we fail to recognize that  anything that requires state recognition involves the state and we are all the state and responsible for it's welfare? The sad irony is that this question has been posed by elected officials such as congressman Barney Frank and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.  If they don't understand how passing a law to which all citizens must adhere effects those same citizens what are they doing in public office?

The gays promote the idea that the only thing that precluded this ludicrous notion in the past was that everyone opposed to it were bigots. They suggest that we all be 're-educated' and receive sensitivity training. In response to my comments on the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's gay friendly policies against 'heterosexism' one 'gay-narriage' supporter wrote:

"...sensitivity training, even if extreme, can't hurt.  There are far too many Tracy Morgans out there who are in need of help to overcome their prejudices and cruel hatefulness."

What exactly does 'extreme sensitivity training' entail, water boarding, electric shock treatment, psychotropic medications until we accept homosexuality as normal and healthy?  The fact of the matter is that while homosexuality was and is considered by most as disordered it is categorically consider so as a behavior. Whereas heterosexuals are considered aberrant because of their political position, values and beliefs. It was President Eisenhower who warned Americans of the military-industrial complex but we are more rightfully to be cautious today of the medical-governing complex. One in which psychiatric diagnoses will be attributed according to people based on their political positions. Already, heterosexuals who profess that homosexuality is a behaviorally aberrant are themselves called 'homophobes'. A term which I am not absolutely certain does not exist in the latest diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders. Their is a growing consensus amongst the elitist liberals that dissenting heterosexuals are inherently intellectually inferior and need to be sent to 're-education' camps as in the great leap forward of Chairman Mao in communist China or the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.

So  have we been a country of bigots for over two hundred and forty odd years? No. That is simply a blatant and strategic lie designed simply to demonize those opposed to this obvious psychological attack against the American people. For far too long we have failed to assess the psychological maturity of people in this country and yet we have legal age requirements in order to take part of certain societal privileges such as voting, drinking, sexual intercourse and of course marriage. Yet we do not see these nominal age prerequisites as 'bigoted' and irrational oppressions, we understand  them to be necessary qualifications to partake of these privileges. Why is marriage viewed as an unfettered right rather than a privilege upon qualifications? Is it true that any two people of the opposite sex can marry? Absolutely not, people who are too closely related cannot marry, those whose probability of healthy children is deemed too low by medical standards such as the mentally incapacitated are prohibited from marriage for the same reason. Polygamy has been barred without a reasonable explanation for years amongst the Mormons in Utah and across America in general. Certainly, homosexuals who have a zero chance of healthy children and who are prohibited from even routine blood donation then do not meet the qualifications for marriage. Thus when heterosexuals claim that procreation is not a factor in marriage they are clearly incorrect. Procreation, the probability of healthy children that is,  has always been a factor regarding marriage privileges and primarily for the state's welfare and the welfare of the child who would become the ward of the state as a new citizen if the parents are incompetent. Naturally, as stated earlier, there are also age requirements that must be met in order to qualify one to marry.  Here we must ask, what is the significance of  age requirements? The biological age requirements are rooted to a presumptive correlation of psychological maturation. In fact it is the psychological maturation which is of predominant importance in most instances. When someone can qualify for Congress or the Presidency has more to do with their psychological development rather than any biological thresholds in time. If not for the psychological maturation in fact the nominal age of the person would have little meaning. In fact, to the astonishment of many we have been angered but also surprised when a legal infant who has been statutorily raped at ages as young as twelve becomes pregnant and bears another child. In a further example, child soldiers in Liberia kill men and get high on drugs so too do American G.I.'s biologically older than they. Yet not all the child soldiers become psychologically disintegrated and not all the American G.I.'s remain integrated, if in truth they ever were in the first place. So it is not for biological reasons that intercourse with minors are illegal or that the age to enlist and kill a man in the United States military is eighteen rather than eleven but rather because of the psychological trauma that is presumed to ensue if such encounters are engaged prematurely under the further presumption of a direct biological and psychological age correlation predicated on what must be a 1950's conventional lifestyle in America. Yet, in America by eighteen the former child is considered an instant adult without any correlative evidence that in fact they have acquired psychological maturity. Is it possible that inside the biological eighteen year old lies a psychological infant of fifteen or sixteen?
Is it possible that this individual through fear or emotional immaturity refuses to venture much further than that and enter into psychological adult hood without anyone's awareness since it is a covert process and the rites of passage test have become culturally extinct in America?

When we read the comments of homosexuals do we not get a first hand glimpse of their psychological age? When we see Justice Von Walker delve into a diatribe of rationalism regarding same sex marriage in California or congressman Barney Frank throw a tantrum regarding the same aren't we witnessing psychologically immaturity? Is it rational to have two people of the same sex in a marriage? Ought there not be an equal ration of the sexes in this societal institution? Should there not be a ration of God in people's life? After all aren't we all equal under God?  Is that not where the very concept of equality stems? Wasn't that the meaning in the Declaration of Independence?

What then are human rights? Rights that humans bestow upon themselves amongst themselves? Isn't this invalid? The rights understood in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the ones bestowed on man under God. How does one know when they are right? When they are justified against someone that is absolutely right and that would be God. God is truth, you only know that you are absolutely right when you deal with it in a meta-physical sense. Mathematically you can have a perfectly right angle, materially you cannot however, it is against this metaphysical benevolence of God that we have come to know what is immutably true and perfect and not through a consensus of the intemperate and imperfect creatures that we are.

Materialism has caused us all to digress into an extrinsic legalistic society which paradoxically has lead us to more oppression and exploitations disguised as freedoms, i.e. abortion and pornography.The homosexual fallacy is based on the false logical palindrome that anything running in one direction can be freely run in the opposite. That what is good for the goose is good for the gander, including another gander. All squares are parallelograms and all parallelograms are squares. A woman is sexually equivalent to a man and thus the woman can be replaced by one.  The rectum is as good as a vagina and can be exploited as a sexual object. It is suitable to be used as penal receptive orifice as well as an orifice of waste expulsion. There is no difference, there is no teleological exclusion that exist in the human body. This abnormal use of the rectum is not 'ab-use' and abuse is love. We are all just objects in three dimensional space.

With this Wundatian, materialistic interpretation of life words are only so much scribble on paper, a perception applied to some of the most important tomes in society, the D.S.M, the law and the Bible. Meaning is irrelevant, it requires a soul, an interperative subject but with the invert the subject has become the object and the objects have become subject to his interpertations of them. Meaning, the discursive interpertation of everything from astrologiy to psychology is discredited as 'fairy tale' and farce. Thus signifigance of a thing is unobtainable to the homosexual, like the Narcissist reflection in pond and anything that threatens his glass house is eradicated in order to aviod the emotional suffering of admitting that he does not exist in isolation from others, that there is an interdependence of souls that course through him. Too great to accept is the fact that although he claims to be a god and denies God he is not independant and soverign as is God. He is a part of a woven tapestry and a way station of other people's lives to whom he must submit from time to time. So this truth is avoided and being a biological adult, one no longer has a master who can demand him to tolerate such humilation.

Further, take note, when it comes to successful ancient societies why is it that the Jewish society is so often bashed as "primative' by atheist and homosexuals (same difference one in the same). The Greeks and all their mythology are studied in Princton, the Roman's are even privately envied and not so privately honored. Yet, the Jewish people and their great gift to the world, the Bible and the revealed true God is dismissed as unworthy of even class room study.  It is because of this very fact that the  homosexual borders on a schizophrenic materialism where words are meaningless to them. They have proved that with the 'gay-marriage' debates. The double-mindedness of the homosexual is obvious and it just seems like this is another group that is used against the American values of freedom. Using the Constitution against America is no different than how the Protestants use of the Bible against Catholics. The first group was the African-Americans  although they were certainly disenfranchised most White American businesses have received a great boon combining the suffering of the African-American with the realist philosophy of the Catholic Church using the fourteenth amendment to be able to recognize their businesses as a 'person'.  Woman suffrage called for equality, in politics and then in pay and now in all things to the point that authority of the man has been thrown out entirely but what they call freedom only lead to divorce, debasement and disenfranchisement. In fact the dignity of women are lower today than they were fifty years ago. Yet this has ushered in 'equality' no different than communism where it ultimately does not matter who 'wears the pants' as long as the work gets down and ironically wages have stagnated for both sexes.  Now the homosexuals are ushered in as the latest suffering group who refuses to suffer any more in society and looks to change it entirely, to a world which much more suits them or rather those who seek to exploit them to destroy the bonds of family and religion in order to dissolve the nation states and create one world government operated by the elite and the land tilled by clones. Yet, behind the material accruement of each group there has been an ultimate political enfeeblement. I have never seen so many female actresses and singers half naked in the newspapers as I have as of late. They are near celebrated prostitutes than grande dames. African-Americans have viewed the election of President Barrack Obama as a great accomplishment but he is the very one serving to unravel America. Selling her into licentious bondange with many unemployed today and with strange curtailments on common American freedoms. Mandatory purchases of health insurance to further bind or civil liberties for our biological 'own good', guilty until proven innocent at all the airports, armed military at the main rail road stations and the desolution of marriage and thus the family with his support for the gay agenda.

Yet the other question remains, why are so many heterosexual people in favor of 'gay-marriage'? The answer is quite simple. It is because they are morally debased themselves.  A better question would be why is it that sex is not related to character and character is not related to national security anymore? Sexual license has severally injured this once great nation and it is always been used as a method of exploiting people. We have so sexualized the culture that abortion on demand has rendered the woman nothing more than a sex object which often she exploits for her own political power and advantage yet at the cost of multiple abortions per woman. Pornography is legal when once it was considered to have no redeeming social value. Instead of lambasting the perverts in Times Square the Square has been remodeled and 'cleaned' of much of the sexual entertainment but the same pornography pours in buckets directly into the homes of 'all the good' people who two or three generations ago would have called the 'perverts' going to Times Square for a peep show degenerates. Even the bearded men with the sandwich boards proclaiming that 'the end is near' have disappeared and are certainly not being aired on Internet and cable pornography channels. Thus what was once considered smut has become 'main stream porn' and acceptable entertainment but not because the subject matter has changed but because the same privacy extolled to kill babies is employed to entice people to engage in sex and so the 'circle of life' is circumvented for private satisfaction.

Yet the fact is that sex is directly related to character which is why it needs to be kept in check. This is one of the primary reasons why traditionally women are subject to their husbands. Whereas many men will never really want to ban women from driving as they do in the Iranian theocracy, they cannot deny that here in the United States they are confronted with a perverted debauchery where the ordinary structures of society are being torn down. If you never start to maintain authority where will this quest for liberties end and how will a society stay cohesive for it's own survival?

Although those of us who oppose 'gay-marriages' are called homophobes, the reality of the matter is that people who do not have a respect for sexuality are the ones who more directly threaten the sovereignty of this nation.  The essence of respect is fear. Men and women who do not know how to fear their own sexuality also cannot take responsibility for it when everything falls apart and many of them will be quite content to live in anarchy.

Sexuality has really been one the most damaging indulgences of our society and it has been under regulated in America for too long. We have found ourselves threatened by our privileges and success, or eating habits, smoking habits, spending habits but also our sexual habits, yet we cry that how we behave is no one's business but our own. Again, there is this issue of privacy which often leads to public disgrace and national disintegration.  When one lives in a society one does not live for or by one's self. A government of the people for the people by the people is a governing process that obviously has to include the people. One has to see where their obligations lie in relations to all their 'rights'. If we are no good to one another we are no good to ourselves. Remember the commands of Christ, "love thy neighbor". We are created as interdependent beings, money often gives us the false impression that we are all islands amongst the currency.

When 'laws' are written that says people can jump out the window and fall up into a cushy cloud rather than the hard street below the law is detrimental to the people and is a bad law. It is a law that no one can follow without harm to themselves. The positivist laws written that are self destructive to the people are laws that are to be rejected. The 'gay-marriage' law is exactly that.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

A Ruse By Any Other Name

Watching a movie the other day I realized the amount of brain washing that we go through. In today's movies there is no hero, only a protagonist, there is no happy ending unless we are discussing a sexual innuendo and the good guys, well there are no good guys. The movies for instance "The Mechanic" (A remake of the 1972 Charles Bronson film by the same name which I admitingly haven't seen) starring Jason Statham and "The Last Three Days" starring "Russell Crowe". Both movies depict murderers as the protagonist. Now despite what we would like to say, we can't watch a movie without a hero. We need to actually care for the lead character in order to hope that he succeeds at his endeavors. What is troubling about this binding of our affection to these protagonists is that we dismiss the evil they commit in exchange for character traits most men honor, such as loylty, fraternity and empathy. If it sounds like I just explained why dogs are man's best friend, keep that in mind and try to figure out whose the dog and whose the master the next time you watch a film. For instance in "The Mechanic" Jason Statham is suggested to be an assassin working for a legitimate government agency, presumably the CIA, although this is never made clear. He has a mentor (Donald Sutherland) and a man the supposed CIA boss who tells him whom to kill. He is instructed by the CIA team leader to of all things kill his mentor. After asking for a meeting he is shown 'proof' that his mentor is a 'double agent' who sold out operatives in the field and must subsequently be terminated. He is told by the CIA team leader that only two people knew of the operation he and the mentor and we are to assume that this quasi government agent can't himself be a liar or at least we are given the impression that he is someone Jason must assume above suspicion as a rule, even in a world where the one general rule is killed or be killed.  Jason, that is Arthur Bishop, the character he plays in the film, is convinced or at least obedient. He goes out and kills his mentor. At this point I find since there is only one main character left the viewer is given only one choice, endear yourself to this sympathetic assassin or stop watching the film. Yeah, so as I was saying... we are not just talking about any assassin, as there are an entire cast of them, but, our more noble assassin, Jason Statham! The one who gives a top shelf bottle of Scotch to the old African-American man on the docks whose boats he uses to shuttle back and forth from his luxurious assassin mansion and yes, the one who is remorseful over the murder he committed of his fatherly mentor. Yes, the assassin who was noble enough to take his mentor's son under his wing and to train him how to be like him, a noble assassin. From here on end it is all death and mayhem and you root for the one who at least gives integrity the old college try. You root in the end for the one who best exemplifies cool detachment and worldly 'wisdom', yeah, just as God said you ought not.

The other film (of the many) that parallels some of the traits 'good' society favours is "The Last Three Days".  In this movie Russell Crowe's wife is found guilty of murder of her boss, we are immediately sympathetic, (except if we ourself happen to be the 'boss', then we are mildly apprehensive.)  After exhausting every legal strategem his attorny is motivated to undertake, Crowe or John Brennan, his character in this movie, is confronted by his defeatist attorney who makes it clear he himself  is convinced (as is most save Crowe) of her guilt and actually works hard it seems to convince Crowe of this rather than to attempt to plea her innocence to another judge or jury and all of this at a considerable financial expense to Crowe himself. Crowe, though has decided despite even his wife's bold face lie to the contrary, told in an effort to release him of his demonstratively inordinate attachment to her that she is innocent and has decided to break his wife out of prison and move to another country. One where  the long arms of the American law would have a hard time finding him. Now while many of us could certainly imagine being so frustrated with a boss that we felt we could clunk them over the head with a fire extinguisher and kill them as in this movie and although many of us love our wives and family, the question then arises, how far would we go to  be united with them again? Will we bust them out of prison? Will we kill someone? Well, Russell Crowe's character proceeds to do exactly that.

Crowe runs out of money and is in desperate need of some more and where better to get it than the local crystal meth suppliers he saw raking in the cash days before? Although during his expeditions through the Pittsburgh streets in a clumsy attempt to garner false passports for his wife, son and himself he was clunked over the head and robbed by an African-American drug dealer and Caucasian partner days earlier, he goes to the safe house of an all white crew of dealers. Here we see how the liberal sympathies are maintained.  After crouching by the door and hammering the local dealer over the head pushing him through the door to the supplier inside Crowe sets the house on fire in a ploy to get the supplier to tell him where all his money lies. Here he is probably endangering the life of the body guard he locked in the closet and the dog he could not shoot, not to mention the suppliers unwitting neighbors but alas that is the ends our protagonist feels he has to carry out to complete his plan. Everyone knows the dog (ineffective as a guard dog) never deserves to be shot so the dog and  the body guard in the closet escape with their lives. In a final pitch to demonstrate that he too is a 'good fella' we see the newly freed (and safe) blond and muscular body guard chasing Crowe down on foot as Crowe drives as far as he can in reverse away from the house... with the dying drug dealer he shot in the back seat, whom he assures he would not let die. He gives it his best effort demonstrating that he 'has a heart' and that it was certainly the drug dealer would have done for anyone else but unfortunately the dealer does die of blood loss and Crowe deposits his body on a bus stop bench.
We are supposed to feel that the supplier he shot in self defense and the drug dealer deserved to die; that they got what they deserved for being no good drug pushers.

I won't give away much more of the movie. However, at this point it is clear that Crowe himself is guilty of  serious crimes, a double homicide in the course of a robbery and arson. All this is of course is the mere prerequisites for his main crime, breaking his wife out of county jail. Thus, any opportunity of rooting for a 'good guy' is gone. Who are we to follow now? Why do we stick with the Crowe character and his family when we think that everyone is guilty. Wait, there is the small boy, their son whom they go back to fetch from a woman Crowe met at the park and whom the mother loved so much she would rather die than leave. Remember the first commandment? There is no mention of that here. here the husband loves the wife to point of murder and the wife loves their son to point of attempting suicide.

 I have come to realize that we don't have any actual 'heros' in the movies or on television anymore. I come to question if we ever had, we used to have those who honored the State, honored the law but not in the more modern films. Everyone is a protagonist, someone who is not necessarily doing anything good in the long run but who is a character one can feel compassion for. No one gives up their life like Christ, no one empties themselves to be filled with only the things God wants. The most pressing affection in the movies today is the love of man. Husband for wife, wife for child, apprentice for mentor and fraternal camaraderie, we love each other as much as we can and the Word of God if ever that is convenient. It is less love, than affections, to the fables we will turn and self denial is completely absent.

In David Kupelian's book "The Marketing Of Evil" he makes note of Madsen and Kirk's deliberate propaganda of the homosexual culture and lifestyle in the book they have written. In it they discuss three tried and true ways of brain washing the American people into accepting homosexuality. They accomplish this through desensitizing, jamming and converting. To desensitize people to the homosexual cause they simply inundate them with affable gay characters, with Jamming, the jam the messages of those opposed to homosexuality like Dr. Laura Schlesinger whom they badgered off the air. In conversion it is a basically substituting the affection one has for one thing with that of another. As Kirk and Madsen explains it:
"In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label "gay." either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype......Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement." *
In today's Hollywood (doublet of the Holy Rood) we find that all values that are common amongst the average man is converted or employed in a grammatical moral syntax but substituting the immoral or immoral behavior as the terms. For instance, we root not for the good and honest hero, never for the priest and never for those faithful to Christ's teachings. In fact I came across one self-defense website that had a huge banner which declared, "WARNING: Do Not Watch This Free Presentation if You Have Moral, Ethical Or Religious Reasons Forcing You To Cower Helplessly While Someone Attacks You, Your Wife Or Your Kids..."** We root for the murder (albeit he murders a drug dealer), we root for the professional assassin (because after all he is only doing his job) and currently,  we root for the self-affirming homosexual but how did we get that way? Through systematic brain washing.

Take heed of what you watch next time your at the movies, then try to get a healthy dose of your Bible in or watch some E.W.T.N, believe me, it is important to refresh oneself with the truth and even the yearning and effort to do good. If you are not returning to the Catholic well, where else can you receive the paradigms of the Catholic values. If we constantly and exclusively watch the television and the movies slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) the birds will take the seeds away that have fallen by the wayside and all our Catholic values and expected modes of behaviour our very values will be supplanted by that of the enemy and make no mistake about it, Russell Crowe is the enemy. I'm kidding but only slightly. Russell Crowe recently ranted over Twitter (if that's possible) that children are born perfect and so there is no need for the 'barbaric and stupid' practice of circumcision. While as a Catholic I don't see anything with him foregoing circumcision for his son but this notion that children are born perfect and some how ruined at some later time perhaps around puberty is one that is deeply enmeshed in a belief that children are born well, perfect. That they do not have any original sin, are only corrupted from the world around them. This is exactly the same argument Lady Gaga uses in defence of homosexuals. They are born that way and therefore, perfect as they are. Yet, what is a child who is not disciplined? How can the angel of light fall to corruption of pride and yet the children of men be much less susceptible? The notion that children are born perfect is what really added fuel to the fire over the Church sex scandal. It is very difficult to speak to people on the subject when they hold this honestly non-Catholic view.

I am further reminded of when I told a woman working at ACS that a young man in question whom she was giving counsel 'ought' to finish high school, she just kept repeating the world 'ought' over and over again as if it were fairy tale idealization unsuited for such practical matters as 'real life'. It was immaterial and thus dispensable yet she never come to realize that the 'oughts' in life is what gives the person the impetus to strive for better and decent and even while occupied at that he is not engaging in the demeaning and the base.

We ought to watch critically the movies we can often passively enjoy as mere entertainment and like actor Neal McDonough not participate in activities or watch movies where the main employment of the actors and the script is to desensitise, jam or convert our values to that of the world.

Kupelian, David. The Marketing Of Evil. Tennessee Cumberland House Publishing, Inc

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Free Among The Dead

When I think about this country, since Memorial day was just two days ago. I am caught between wanting to live my life and what I have to recognize as the changed stance my government has taken towards my religion, causing me to take seriously the call of Christ to lose one's life for His sake. The latter I must confess is not so much a noble aspiration on my part because, well, there is so little I have in common with this new world. How can I go on living in a country, a world for that matter, that every day is attempting to deteriorate my religion and values? We often speak of freedom here in the United States and so coming across verse six in Psalms 87 'free among the dead' really struck a cord with me. Yes, one can be free but as the author of that Psalm reveals one can be free in a country, a world or in general a place that has no hope, no life or prospects of a future. When we speak of freedom in this country we seldom speak of where that freedom will be lived out. To that end, what is the sense of being free amongst the dead?

America does have a culture of death. We watch autopsies on television as a form of entertainment. The teenagers not only pepper their conversation with cursing the vulgarity has become for them a language of their own. There is currently a bill in Congress that will deny Catholic organizations the right to serve as adoption agencies because the Catholics will not place children in the homes of gay couples. When I think of some of the places that I have worked or hoped to work serving in some menial capacity, I can recall the people there that hated me because I was not friendly towards them. I suffer from some malignant counter phobic tendency to ward off anyone who smiles at me too much or too generously. Since I was a child I have been made sadden by a smile. It has always registered in me a lack of respect for my person, a precursor to deceit. So certainly in some instances the fault in my disenfranchisement can be squarely leveled on my bilious personality, but at other times there was just this uprising of emotions that veered from friendliness towards me to hate. It is, make no mistake about it, how others feel about you, whether they are willing to spend forty hours or more around you in the course of a week, day in and day out, that will determine whether or not you get the job. Eventually I find that people hate me so I sustain on the very margins of society.  However, many themselves come from a background of ignominy and darkness and it seems that what they don't want is the light to shine on their darkness, I don't mean their upbringing per se, I mean the shroud of unconsciousness in which they wallow away the carrousel of their lives. So that when any conscious thought is elucidated upon this, their life, they become really upset and and reflexively I am ejected. At least that is how I perceive these situations. For instance when you tell them that you are Catholic and don't respect homosexuality as a valid stage of psychological health, you will be seen as an obstacle to the now well established political correctness in this country. It is tantamount to saying that you are a pro-Confederate army, pro-slavery Klan member and view African-Americans as an inferior people. Although that being said, for the most part we have completely over looked the fact that we have in a pseudo tongue-n-cheek manner given place to the very establishment of the political concept of being politically correct in the first place and nonchalantly entrenched this brazenly Un-American concept into our lives.  We are in a  dream where we say to our selves what has happened in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany could never happen here in the United States while all the while our values of freedom are transformed under our nose and it is precisely because we don't want to slow down and interrupt our lives or at any cost sacrifice our lives for freedom which allows for us to be psychologically and mentally cloned on a daily basis. Who said America and Great Britain won the Cold War, Margret Thatcher? One expatriate from a communist country described what it was like to live under that form of government. He recounted the lies that were told on a daily basis to the citizens. He said they weren't just small lies, they were lies no one could seriously be expected to believe. We too live under lies like this today. The lies that we ingest on a daily basis now here in America account for one of the main reasons people in their twenties get their news from Comedy Central. We are told that homosexuality is perfectly psychologically healthy, that although it is patently impossible to develop any sense of self esteem when one is being consistently sodomized, no harm whatsoever will come of it. The lack of the opportunity for high self esteem would explain the need for a gay pride parade rather than a 'high self esteem' parade. What's more we are expected to believe that  these people share no similarities at all with other psychologically disordered Americans such as the depressed, manic-depressives, bulimics or those suffering from anorexia nervosa. Not to mention personality disorders from which of course I suffer. Certainly,  I bring my own character faults to the work place, For instance, I find, I can no longer pretend to be friendly to people, or even pretend that I want to be around them or enjoy their company. That to me is the funny part, my complete inability to deceive other people anymore about how I really feel about the lifestyle I lead here in this city and in this country. I hate pretending that I want to be a 'power broker' or a 'go getter'. I can't pretend anymore that I find arrogance and pride desirable traits. I can't pretend that I envy my superiors. I can't even stand being around most people, I live on the border between narcissism and misanthropy.  Yet, since narcissism (along with homosexuality it's (no pun intended) kissing cousin) is no longer classified as a personality disorder I am simply a charmless misanthrope (and perhaps masochist). Yet, my case isn't terminal,  I find a few hours in the gym tends to clear up these anti-social symptoms readily enough. Which reminds me, I have to start a new membership at the local gym but I find I am not so willing to accommodate their terms in which they insist on having direct access to my revenue stream through my bank account. I would have to close the account if there were any unsettled disagreements. I feel that is a little to close for comfort or is that simply more misanthropy? We seem to be coalescing economically but diverging politically. We can all get along but only if we abandon our religions and the definitions of what some of us believe constitutes a family.

So then, shamefully as almost by default, a Christian has to look again at Christ's terms. Lose one's life for His sake. Losing ones life is not as challenging as is the boredom that ensues. I have found I have an embarrassing addiction to whirling about. I will even take subway rides just to supplement that feeling of commute. Ah! The joy of never having enough time, of not being still. Yet, Christ has made those two things clear. That man must lose his life to find it and that to be rich in this world is unfavorable to the Christen, ergo Protestantism. If one forgoes Christ, he is free to participate in this New World Order, he is free to pursue happiness amongst the other dead. It only makes sense that one would have to choose between this world and the next. It only makes sense that it would have to be an act of the free will, an act of volition, rather than a simple stumbling into the next world unconsciously. As a Catholic I have witnessed Americans devolve into a people who have submitted to materialism nearly in it's entirety who have turned to a Soviet styled government where they are told what will be acceptable by their government. They will be told by their government as they have now in NYC parks, that there is no smoking in the parks and thus a government which once distributed cigarettes to it's G.I.'s now tax the same exorbitantly so that many can no longer afford them and commit these illegal laws into action under the auspices of keeping Americans healthy or rather to make it abundantly clear that they are completely  unwilling to cover the smokers hospital bill when they get ill. Yet, at the same time the government endorses same sex marriage which serves to decimate the idea of the family in it's entirety. Are these things done for the common good? Or are they precursors to having healthier drones? Is it good government to use social engineering in order to keep America's population physically healthy but not psychologically healthy? Of course the greater reality being that few if any of us are even living in a conventional family setting any more at all. I think that when I come to terms with my government as a Christian and find that I am against what the government wants to accomplish and against the culture of the country I have grown up in I owe it to myself to ask myself how do I live, how do I work here and do I really want to? I, at one in the same time decry the devaluation of the American family but myself have declined to start one. Do I really want to strengthen the arm of a government I do not trust and do not agree with? The question of what am I doing with my life challenges my conscience much more vigorously than the question of what is it I do.  I am living much in the way that the government would prefer the majority would live, quietly, meagerly and celibate. Yet I align myself with Christ who preached that the poor are valuable and that some make themselves eunuchs for heaven(Matt 19:12)(1st Corinthians 7:8). It would seem that the government wants something very similar except that they want disciples of materialism. I have worked as a sub-contractor in commercial bank where they have had their employees come in on a Sunday in order to be prepared for Monday. Now certainly as a Catholic I would balk at this.

Although to be honest for all my aspirations to saintliness my situation is no different for me amongst the people of even my own local parish. I have left two of the main organizations I was a part of, the role of catechist and that of choir singer. (There was much to much blasphemy permitted amongst the catechumens and too many homosexuals in the choir). I have also failed the behavior test at Cablevision taken in order to get employment there and so I would have to admit there is something wrong with my behaviour or that I have a character flaw. I am a quitter. However at the same time I see people who curse and call me a 'punk' at every given oppurtunity and they are confident that they are in good standing with their community, they are certain that their waywardness is the status quo, while my relgion forbids calumny and verbal detraction of any kind. (Matthew 12:36)

I have recently wondered what people think when they ponder the tsunami that hit Japan. The Japanese were praised for responding in such an orderly fashion to their government. Yet, few will speak of the fact that the Japense were cloning mice seamen in effort to make clone mice and soon would move on to make human clones in this fashion. I wondered what they thought of the hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, the floods in France, the floods in Missouri, the fires across California, the earth quakes in China that have shattered lives. I wonder why none of these disasters have worried them here in New York, why they seemingly don't perceive a connection between moral behavior and the fear of God? I wonder why they seem to believe that the party of life will just keep on going? Perhaps it is because they aren't 'punks', perhaps it is because they are confident in their flesh. Yet, God has cursed the man who trusts in his flesh (Jeremiah 17:5). Perhaps they have not read this or believe as I do.

So yes, Americans have freedom but they are free amongst the dead. Free to bury their own dead(Matt 8:22) as dead men themselves and free to follow this government into eternal damnation. It is the first time in my life in which the government has demonstrated so striking a characteristic as to be so stridently and overtly against religion as a whole. Where the government of the people, for the people, by the people have found that it is in their better interest to keep their jobs even if it means losing their country, and for that matter, their souls.

Friday, April 8, 2011

The "Cover Up"

Saying that there is a cover up amongst the Bishops is just part of the cover up. When the boy is abused by his dad or step dad and the mother comes in and wipes the semen from his mouth that is part of the cover up. When the boy comes in to tell his parents that he was molested by the man next door and is slapped in his face and told to stop lying that is part of the cover up. By claiming there was a cover up and diverting all our attention to the Catholic Bishops (not even the pedophile priest who were not held to same degree of culpability in part because they, like the Bishops position on pedophilia years ago, are still be many perceived to be too sick to control themselves) we allow pedophiles who are not of the cloth to attack children in even greater obscurity. If the Bishops are responsible for a cover up in the Church who is responsible for the cover ups outside the Church? Ought we not to tell the police all we know about our brothers and fathers and uncles and sons? Yet, the question would be like that posed to the disciple when Christ asked if they wanted to leave too. "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (John 6:69). If we remember, it was the New York City Police Department that actually started to sell the drugs brought in by famed NYPD police officer Eddie Egan during this time in the seventies, so it would be a precarious assumption that even the police would be completely free of guile and corrupt motives in this matter. Further, the question of why the victims themselves did not turn to the police in such numbers is indicative of a certain social inhibition of some kind regarding this social failure. It should seem evident therefore that a crisis of morals does not have a legal remedy. The pervasiveness of the pedophile behavior which can be traced all the way up to State Supreme Court Justices and other high ranking members of society often make exposure of the crime difficult. It is only because there is a political assault on the Church that the Bishops are vulnerable. Yet, this cry of 'cover up' intimates that pedophilia is uniquely localized in Catholic culture and the Church. Had we claimed it to be an Irish characteristic, or a German or (as the Pope did) an American phenomenon there would only be justifiable retaliation claiming the same occurs in one's own back yard. For the crime of pedophilia to occur all one needs is the pedophile, the child and an opportunity. The courts want to claim that the Bishops had a greater desire to protect the Church than seek justice. Yet, at the end of the day it certainly seems if in fact that were their motive (which I do not believe to be the case) it was well justified. These crimes have a statute of limitations and in certain cases were determined by American courts to be a misdemeanor. Yet these same crimes, whose stature of limitations were inexplicably rescinded were used to bilk the Church out of BILLIONS of dollars of charitable donations (the pedophile priest and Bishops weren't selling their personal villas in Italy and yachts to pay these enormous punitive damages, they never had that kind of money)and to have the Pope himself stand trail for the acts of pedophiles serving as priest,(presumably he could not be held accountable for the parishioners convicted of pedophilia). All of which only lends incentive to under report any future cases of pedophilia by any institution. The reality of pedophilia is more akin to drug use, it is illegal but so prevalent that in a way the society itself is responsible for a 'cover up'. No one is turning in a friend for smoking pot or snorting cocaine. No one is turning in a co-worker to the police because they frequent brothels. Yet these are crimes and if we are to say that they are not as morally heinous or reprehensible as pedophilia we would only be speaking from our disposition as members of one culture rather than that of the other and with an ever increasing psychologically immature sentiment that children are innocent, disproved by the pedophile scandal itself. We find proof that a child's life is quite perilous and complicated and proof that many were only idealizing not only the childhood of the victims but their own as well. Many have idealized the Church for their own comfort, to which the actual history of the Church itself would quickly strip from the lovers of chorals and ceremony. All that time that many were maintaining these selfish notions the children were being raped, since most of the cases took place in the past, there was never a time when this wasn't happening for millions today. However, if it wasn't for the pedophile sex scandal in the Church I don't believe we would have had a national conversation on pedophilia at all, even as it stands we still don't, the conversation inevitably digresses into the 'evils' of Catholicism, the Inquisition and so forth. Currently, pedophilia is the fly in the soup but the 'soup' is actually a puree of flies. Today pedophilia is the only vice. When the State wanted to normalize homosexuality they legalized sodomy, when the State wanted abortions on demand, they legalized abortion, when the State wanted pornography on demand, they legalized pornography to the point where it is thousands of times larger than the industry it was in days it saturated the theaters and shops of old "sleazy' Times Square NYC. Now that people can watch the 'filth' in the privacy of their own homes that somehow made it more acceptable, as one man described it, mainstream porn. Yet it is the same morally degrading content it was in Times Square. Certainly main stream porn is nothing but a sewer from which the people imbibe? There is not even a remote moral justification associated with these legal pronouncements. They are simply perceived by millions as a matter of civil liberties. Today, the moral tides ebb the sand from under our feet yet again as it did in the sixties with the sexual revolution and declassification of homosexuality as a psychiatric problem. Now, with the legalization of 'gay marriages' is the new form of liberalization with the blatant lie that the only reason it had never developed before is because we live in a society of brutes and oppressors who hold their sexual natures as paramount and refuse to share their hallowed stature with homosexuals. The irony being of course that any one who actually thinks that way is probably homosexual. Yes, the poor employees at the square tire factor are being oppressed, that is why we don't see any square tires on cars to this day. All the while, it is the Church primarily who fights tooth and nail against what only twenty years ago would have been thought an absurdity. Again, people claiming that the Bishops were part of a cover up are actually part of the cover up because it takes a village to rape a child. The safety of non-Catholic children are endangered through these accusation by reducing the suspectability of pedophilia amongst those who are not Catholic priest. Yet, it is good that it did happen in the Church because no people could have or would have bared the brunt of the shame in the way that the Church has, giving a hearing to all victims of child hood sexual abuse, not just Catholics. I, for one am grateful they got their hearing and a recognition of their suffering. I also believe that this is one more area where the Church is way ahead of many nation states. The Church was one of the first institutions where homosexuals had access to high social standing in society and a fairly free run about as homosexuals but the Church unlike the states that endorsed and attempt to normalize homosexuality also denied it and barred it once it began to reveal itself to possess a dormant malicious streak. The Church has also taken the painful steps in addressing pedophilia in a way that no State has ever done. So yeah, I still listen to the Bishops and support them even more.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Obama and Holden Do More Harm

It was Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School who asked the simple question, "Where do you get your rights?". Our right to free speech for instance is not granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Our right to free speech and other rights come from God, not man. When the Declaration of Independence says that ...''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it is clearly referencing that man equally created by God derives his 'rights' as a human creature in the universe justified against God and God's law, he does not derive his rights from the government because if so, then he should fully anticipate the day when the government will take those 'rights' back.

This materialist abrogation of metaphysical realities has lead us into concretized two dimensional linear interpretation of all law. "The letter of the law without the Spirit of the law is dead", however. The courts have continuously found the state to be in violation of the constitution when it has been a matter of legal restrictions, they have yet as the Church has so powerfully illustrated when it came to the ordination of women, defined the boundaries of the constitution in what 'rights' it can bestow on it's citizens. The constitution does not give the government the right to rubber stamp any decree that a group of people even the congress is in favor of issuing. The State, like a modern day Roman emperor cannot simply declare that two plus two equal five or water is no longer wet, water is wet for everyone. Homosexuality has provided it's own evidence of cognitive and emotional impairment particularly in the illogical and psychotic social climbing demand to recognize a 'marriage' between two people of the same sex. The courts therefore who are in favor of such a union are in violation of natural law and logic to even mention that it is within their authority to recognize the concept of same sex unions, people of the same sex are not maritable any more than marriage between man and a non-human or marriage between man and one under the age of consent are maritable. Marriage is predicated on a complimentary union of archetypal polar opposites. This admits the potential for procreation which is not to be dismissed as an unneccessary element of a marriage. There is no union to which the state or any man can be said to have the luxury of investing as we do as a society recognizing a marriage, where that union is unproductive and unconducive. When a thing 'works' then that person is 'right', when a thing does not 'work', that person has been proven false, you have to have demonstrative production to legitimize any endeavor or union.

Lastly, let us stop making a comparison between African-Americans and homosexuals. Particularly, if one is not black, let's not tokenize their great civil right struggles for our own causes. The analogy here is one of sexuality not race or ethnicity. There is no analogy between the restrictions of interracial marriage (which, yes, as a person of mixed descent myself will tell you is founded on a legitimate argument of nature and God's law, believe it or not) and homosexuality. The concerns of miscegenation however play no role in the debates over gay 'marriage'.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Thursday, January 20, 2011

It is 'Right to Life' Time! Hallelujah!

This is the commercial rejected by both CNN and NBC.