Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Right to pastry > right to life

Yet most of the people insisting that gays have a right to cake will not argue for, and in fact will viciously oppose, the basic right to life for infant children. The dead bodies of children pile up all around us, and all these clowns can do is whine about their right to pastries.
It’s preposterous. Also, deplorable, barbaric, and evil. We have a right to PRODUCTS but a baby has no right to be free from decapitation and dismemberment?
It makes no sense. None of it makes any sense:
So whatever supernatural force bestows us with our right to commodities, this omnipotent being did not, it turns out, also give us the right to exist to begin with. You have the right to have, but not to be, which seems like a logistical complication considering the minor difficulty of having something when you aren’t something. Might abortion be opposed, then, on the grounds that murdering a child will impede his right to eventually have his gay wedding catered by the business of his choosing?

No, it doesn't make sense. It is as if moral values have been turned upside down and they have.

So the right to pastry supercedes the right to life.


Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/03/31/its-legal-to-kill-babies-but-lets-worry-about-a-gay-persons-right-to-cake/#pEQjAOkTUhMsB6Vu.99

Feminists and Abortion

Reminds me of Jennifer Fulwiler's statement that "being pro-life is being pro-someone else's life".

Monday, March 30, 2015

Eat Dinner Together

Yesterday my husband asked me if I had one piece of advice to give to families today, what would it be? He is a prolific reader and scans articles and posts from a variety of sources. And a theme that he says is emerging is the crisis of the family in today's world. Fractured families create fractured individuals and it is everywhere.

Some of us grew up in the days when divorce was rare. But that is not the case for today's adult generation. It is more the norm to come from a divorced family. And that takes a toll on people.

Keeping families intact should be high on our agenda. How do we do that? How do we make that a priority in a real practical way?

When he first asked the question, I replied that I didn't have one thing to say, but more like a dozen. But then I mulled it over for a few hours. And, keeping in mind that so many people don't have faith as an integral part of their lives, did I actually have any advice that was more generic? 

For those families raising their children in a faith perspective, that is obviously the #1 priority. Or should be. But what about the families for whom that doesn't take a center seat, where perhaps one spouse is not rooted in faith, but these are still families for whom relationships and inter-dependence are important?

And then it became quite clear to me. One very practical piece of advice that I think every family could benefit from. Eat dinner together.

I know it is not possible every day of the week, but it should be a priority five days out of seven.

I heard some years ago that there were new townhouses being built in London, England where there was no dining area. There was a mini kitchen where simple dinners could be cooked or heated, but no place for people to sit facing one another at a table.

In our own family, this was a rule. Everyone was expected to be at the dinner table. There had to be a really good excuse not to be there. The dinner hour was kept sacred.

And I think the reasons for that are pretty clear once you think about it. Sitting at a table and eating is probably the only opportunity for family members to talk about things all together. Families might spend time watching a movie or playing a game together, but they really begin to talk when they sit down for a meal together.

Sometimes the talk will be rowdy, sometimes it will be quiet, but there should always be talk. This can often be the time when problems that lie dormant can surface. Perhaps one of the kids will "tell" on another and that might be the way for a  problem to become public. But it is crucial that parents and kids talk out things together. For some reason, the family dinner table is the best occasion for that to happen.

I recall one occasion in our house when a daughter couldn't hide her irritation with us any longer and she threw her breakfast (it wasn't dinner that time)  at us, much to the delight of our dog. Being covered in scrambled eggs and bacon got our attention in a way that worked really well.

Dinnertimes can also be the time to invite a friend over to share that family time. And for me, those are some of the happiest memories of our family. Sharing a special dinner with a friend or two and having the kids all joining in with the jokes and the chatter were precious times that we all remember.

Dinner doesn't have to be long. Half an hour is plenty of time for people to get into important stuff. But if you don't make time for that, a regular spot each day, family members will tend to draw into themselves more and make up their own life schedules without a thought for the others.

In this time when families are being attacked from all sides, one really simple piece of advice is to just break bread together. There is something about meeting our physical needs together in the same way that also helps to meet the deeper emotional and spiritual needs that we all have.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The connection between large families and priestly vocations

Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview in January to a LifeSiteNews reporter on questions related to the Synod on the Family held last fall in Rome.


Catholics who have been following this know about the division between the Kasper thinking and traditional Catholic teaching. Cardinal Kasper emphasized the need for mercy and compassion when dealing with Catholics who have been divorced and wish to receive Communion, for Catholics who find themselves to be homosexuals; Kasper seems to be advocating for affirming the good in these Catholics and he also seems to be saying that there is something redeeming in their current relationships, even if those relationships are not in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

On the other hand, we have the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=remaining+in+the+truth+of+christ) which is a compilation of essays written by Cardinals on the Church's teaching on marriage, remarriage, divorce, homosexuality, etc. The book that was mysteriously removed from the mailboxes of the bishops who were attending the Synod and which they did not get to read prior to the Synod.

It is an interesting interview and I recommend that you read it, if this interests you.

It is not really new stuff, as I read a lot of this kind of thing anyway. But one section impressed me. It is a perfectly obvious fact if one thinks about it. And that is the relation between parents' being generous in welcoming new life into their families and children in turn being generous with their lives should they hear a call to religious life.

Some years ago, the Halifax diocese held a public meeting to deal with the amalgamation of parishes, as we simply don't have the material resources to keep all these churches open. But even more importantly, we don't have the priests to be the resident pastors of all these churches. Hence the need to amalgamate two or three parishes into one larger parish. It struck me then that, if we had had bigger families in the 60's, 70-'s and 80's, we might not have the dearth of priestly vocations that we now have. Priests generally come from larger families, not always, but it is quite common. In fact in my own family on my husband's side, one family produced two priests.
....  if God has called a couple to marriage, then He is calling them also to be generous in receiving the gift of new human life. And so we need many larger families today, and thanks be to God I see among some young couples today a remarkable generosity with regard to children. The other thing that I seldom hear mentioned today but which was always emphasized when I was growing up, and also in the tradition of the Church, is that parents should be generous in having children so that some of their children could receive the call to the priesthood or to the consecrated life and service of the Church. And that generosity of the parents certainly will inspire, in the child who has a vocation, a generous response to it.
Now God can bring vocations out of any situation, but children raised in families that are larger do learn to be less selfish. It is as simple as that. And following a call to a religious vocation does entail a call to be selfless.

So when people lament the declining number of priests today, perhaps they should be aksed the question "and how many children did you have?" Because the answer might be that they/we contracepted them away.  Perhaps not so bluntly as that, since that would be quite harsh, but we do need to look at the question of birth control and ask the question:
 "have we brought these consequences upon ourselves?"

Friday, March 20, 2015

When Catholics aren't being Catholic

This story on LifeSiteNews is another in a long list of stories that show a disturbing trend: the caving in of Catholics to political correctness. In this case, the politically correct agenda advanced by the LGBT community.


Controversy struck when Patricia Jannuzzi, a theology teacher at Immaculata High School in Sommerville, New Jersey, said that she opposed the legal arguments homosexual activists used to persuade the Supreme Court to redefine marriage.

Her post offended a former student whose aunt just happened to be Susan Sarandon (the actress who said God is a she) who tweeted about how proud she was of her nephew. The topic went viral and has resulted in Jannuzzi's termination of employment.
Last Friday, the school announced that Jannuzzi "has been put on administrative leave, effective immediately." The letter, signed by church pastor Monsignor Seamus Brennan and principal Jean Kline, professed its "intolerance of discriminatory behaviors of any kind."
 "Please be assured that we will do everything we can in this trying time to make clear that the philosophy of Immaculata High School is one of inclusion rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ," they wrote.

So a Catholic teacher at a Catholic school is not allowed to express authentic Catholic teaching.

Whenever I hear of cases like this, I am convinced that the real issue behind the public story is one of money. The administration of the Catholic schools are afraid of losing their position vis a vis the Department of Internal Revenue. Their funding might dry up, as they would be refused tax subsidies; they would lose their tax exemptions that probably amount to quite a bit. So they conform to what is politically correct; in this case, it is being "inclusive" and "tolerant" when it comes to homosexuality.

Just here in my town, I am sure that if the Church lost its charitable tax status, it would then have to pay property taxes and they would be bankrupt. This probably holds true for the education system. Without tax exempt status and without federal monies, the Catholic school boards would go belly up in short order.

Georges Buscemi of Quebec's Campaign Life Coalition said in a speech he gave in Halifax a few years ago, that churches should get used to the idea of losing their tax status. They must learn to survive without it. His reasoning is that the clergy are not free to truly preach Christian truths if they are being surveilled by the state. You can't bite the hand that feeds you. And sooner or later, if a church is to remain Christian, it must bite the hand that is feeding it, if that hand is any other than God.

All over the place, we see our Catholic leaders collapsing from fear of the government. The laughing Cardinal Dolan, with his position in the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC,  is one who comes to mind immediately. Cardinal Tom Collins also comes to mind; he is not quite so prominent but he made a recent statement that Catholic schools of Ontario must be obedient to the Ontario government's regulations with respect to the sex ed curriculum; my own Archbishop Anthony Mancini invited pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage Premier Stephen McNeil to be the key note speaker at the annual archdiocesan fundraising dinner. This decision was protested by many but our objections were dismissed and we were given a letter that we must be "warm and welcoming" to those who have not been well-formed in their Catholic faith. Even to the point of inviting such ill-formed Catholics to be key-note speakers.

What is making these guys take the positions that they do? Do they really think that their positions are harmless and that they are inviting the public into a conversation with them? Or are they simply running scared because they see that they must curry favour with the day's politicians and doing otherwise might get their purse strings cut?

Michael Voris said that there is a rumour that Cardinal Dolan came to some sort of compromise with Governor Cuomo over education in New York State and that is why he has taken such a tolerant attitude towards the gay agenda. And it won't be the first time that Catholics in Canada have gone silent over issues when they fear losing their Catholic schools. This happened in Ontario when the bishops went silent as all restrictions on abortion were removed. There was a rumour then that they had been promised continued support for the Catholic schools if they just kept a low profile.

Why not just give up these financial benefits? If you can't have Catholic schools that are truly Catholic, then why bother? They are going to disappear eventually anyway, but in the process they will take down many students who will be given a very confusing message.

The Scripture passage about harming young souls comes to mind. 

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.  Mark 9:42

Monday, March 16, 2015

Signs for Life new sign

Great interview on talk radio Halifax this morning. Rick Howe interviewed Stephanie Potter from the Signs for Life team on the latest sign to go into the Halifax buses this week.

Click here to listen to the interview. The audio is up now, click on the 10 am link and you will find the audio there.

Stephanie comes on just shortly after 10 am.
As Rick said, this sign is pretty gentle and shouldn't make anyone upset, but we shall see. Any reminder that life begins in the womb seems to upset pro-abortion supporters.

As Stephanie said so well, the purpose of the Signs for Life campaign is to disseminate resources for women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy. The goal of the campaign is to speak to the heart, since it is the young woman who is making a decision that she will have to live with for the rest of her life.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Oh Canada! The True North Strong and Free - really?

This is about freedom of speech folks. The 40 Days for Life vigil in Montreal has been stopped by two injunctions. Two abortion clinics have brought the court order that legislates a "buffer zone" of one full block.

Essentially, this strips the prayer vigil of its ability to impact anyone accessing the abortion clinic. And anyone seeing someone praying a block away from an abortion clinic will wonder what the heck they are trying to do.

Brian Jenkins who has been leading the vigil there for the 13th time is going to challenge the imposed injunctions. However the earliest court date at which they can state their arguments for the right to be on the sidewalk outside or across from the clinics is June 16th, 2015.

Of course, the vigil will be long over by then. Precisely what the accusers had in mind.
The four plaintiffs were petitioning the court for a buffer zone the size of a square block preventing us from entering and thereby carrying on our work of peaceful prayer vigil and sidewalk counselling.
The plaintiffs were requesting an immediate temporary injunction and secondly, sought to begin a process to establish a permanent injunction.
 They justified their request on the basis of the harmful effect we were having on their welfare, and the welfare of their clients.

Is this the harmful effect that they fear their clients might suffer?

                                    Paula and her daughter Maria Monalissa
 "Brian Jenkins and other representatives of Quebec Life Coalition have given me furniture, diapers, clothes, basically everything I needed both before and after the birth of my daughter Maria Monalissa."
 "Today, I am very happy that QLC was there, across the street from the Morgentaler Clinic on that day in March 2014 where I was going to abort Monalissa. If I hadn’t met them, without a doubt I would have lost my child." 
If you would like to donate towards their court costs, please click here


Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Abortion Decline? Not!

This is what I thought. The number of abortions aren't really down, as many pro-lifers claim, they are simply being changed from surgical abortions to chemical abortions. And that makes abortion truly hidden, as women take pills and abort at home with no visit to a clinic.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Bullying the Same Sex Agenda

Cheers for the Alabama Supreme Court that said the federal court does not have the right to overturn state law. When 61% of the state's citizens poll that they wish to keep the traditional definition of marriage, no court should have the right to overturn the wishes of the majority.

My daughter shared with me some time ago that she was perplexed by this whole same sex marriage issue. As a mathematician, she is extremely logical and she saw this as a move to redefine something that was already in existence. One does not get to "redefine" something that is already the case.

Simple when you put it like that, isn't it? And the Alabama Court said as much.
To all of this, proponents of same-sex marriage often retort that there is no reason both the traditional definition and the new definition of marriage cannot coexist. On one level, that argument makes the erroneous assumption that the two definitions are not making different claims as to why marriage exists. On another level, it simply assumes that the definitions are not mutually exclusive. 
Redefining marriage by definition implies that the traditional definition is inaccurate. In point of fact, we are concerned here with two different, mutually exclusive definitions. One that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and one that does not include this limitation. Both definitions cannot be true at the same time. Insisting that the law must legitimize one definition necessarily delegitimizes the other. 


Advocates for gay rights and same-sex marriage are the new bullies in the schoolyard. And one does not stop bully behaviour by caving in to it and appeasing the bully. They always need to be told their behaviour will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately my country Canada always gives in to bullies. This is one reason why I like the US so much; Americans seem to have a backbone that we lack here in the north.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

"Never again"


Comparisons have been made: Obama appears like Neville Chamberlain of Britain during WWII;  Netanyahu is compared to Churchill.
Some Democrats are livid over this speech; Nancy Pelosi for one.
But what keeps coming to me is that those who object do not really seem to take seriously the threat of a nuclear Iran. Compared to that, ISIS is nothing. As Netanyahu said, ISIS and Iran have the same goal in mind: world domination. They are at odds who will lead that. ISIS conquers with knives and beheadings; Iran will get nukes and blow everyone up.
Pretty darn obvious to me. Listen to the man. This feels like 1937. People didn't listen then either.
Elie Wiesel was in the Congress to hear Netanyahu. This is a Jewish man who survived the holocaust, was a professor of history and political activist, author of 57 books including "Night" an autobiographical account of his time in the concentration camps, and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 for his writings. For him, Netanyahu said "never again".